downloaded - Scholars at HUJI

Transcription

From Pella to Gandhara
Hybridisation and Identity in the Art and
Architecture of the Hellenistic East
Edited by
Anna Kouremenos, Sujatha Chandrasekaran
and Roberto Rossi
with a foreword by
Sir John Boardman.
BAR International Series 2221
2011
Published by
Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com
BAR S2221
From Pella to Gandhara: Hybridisation and Identity in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East
© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011
ISBN 978 1 4073 0779 4
Cover image: ‘Cybele Plate’ (silver and gold, d. 25 cm, c. 3rd B.C.) from Ai Khanum, the Temple with Indented Niches.
Afghanistan National Museum, Kabul. Mus. No: 04.42.7. After F. Hiebert and P. Cambon (eds.), Afghanistan, Hidden
Treasures from National Museum, Kabul, cover image/Pl. 11. Washington. (ISBN 978-1-4262-0295-7).
Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd
All BAR titles are available from:
Hadrian Books Ltd
122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk
The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE IN THE IRANIAN WORLD
IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD*
Michael Shenkar
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
The period following the Macedonian conquest of the
Achaemenid Empire is traditionally considered one of the
‘dark ages’ in the history of ancient Iran.1 Very little is
known about Iranian religions and cult practices during
the time when Alexander’s successors ruled most of the
Iranian world.2 We possess no Iranian written sources
from this period and there are only a few brief mentions
in Classical authors regarding Iranian religion or places
of worship, leaving us with incomplete and inconsistent
evidence.3 Some indications (Herodotus, Histories 1.131132) date from the period before the Macedonian
conquest, while others (Plutarch, De hide et Osiride 4647; Strabo, Geography 15.3.13-15) are from the later
period and refer mostly to Western Iran. The historians of
Alexander’s campaigns do not compensate for this
deficiency.4
The Avesta and the Rig Veda do not mention any temples
or cultic structures.5 According to these sources, the
ancient Indo-Iranians practiced their religion under the
open sky. However, besides open air terraces,
archaeological excavations have revealed that a second
type of cultic structure, ‘closed temples’, existed in the
Iranian world before the Macedonian conquest.6 It is
instructive, that even during the reign of the Achaemenid
kings, who united most of the Iranian world under their
authority, no single architectural temple canon was
developed and it seems that cultic structures reflected a
variety of heterogeneous local cults, which existed among
the Iranians. The Achaemenid kings probably worshipped
under the open sky, since no closed temples have been
found in their royal capitals of Western Iran.7 On the
other hand, a number of buildings that had cultic and
sacral significance were excavated in the Iranian world.8
In general, it should be noted that many more temples
were uncovered in Eastern than in Western Iran.

I would like to thank Professors Joseph Patrich, Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Shaul Shaked, Department of
Comparative Religion and Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern
Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Frantz Grenet, École pratique
des hautes études, Hannah M. Cotton, Department of Classics, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem Dr. Claude Rapin, École Supérieur, centre
d’Archéologie, and Dr. Julia Rubanovich, Department of Islamic and
Middle Eastern Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for their
comments and invaluable help in improving this paper.
1
The term Iran as well as the Iranian world/region as used in this paper
reaches beyond the borders of the modern Islamic Republic and refers
to the region from the Hindu-Kush mountains in the East to the Zagros
ridge in the West and from Transoxania in the North to the Persian Gulf
in the South, which in the 1st millennium BCE and the 1st millennium
CE was inhabited by Iranian-speaking tribes and possessed common
cultural and religious ancestry.
2
This situation has even led to attempts to discuss the religious situation
of the Hellenistic period based on the Sasanian evidence: Hjerrild 1990.
See a useful survey of the period, in: Frye 1984, 137-191; Boyce and
Grenet, 1991, 3-34.
3
These fragments were collected and published by de Jong 1997 with
extensive commentary. See also P’yankov 1997.
4
Thus, Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica 17.114.4) mentions that
Alexander followed a Persian custom of quenching the ‘sacred fire’
after the death of Hephaistion. Curtius Rufus (Historiae Alexandri
Magni 6.7.5) reports that the plotters against Alexander took oaths in
the temple that was located in Drangiana in Seistan. See Boyce and
Grenet 1991, 3-17.
Fire was, and still is, one of the common components and
supplementary elements of cultic activities in many
diverse cultures around the world. In Iranian cults, fire
and ashes had a major place and probably also a special
sacral significance, so prominent that the place of
worship of modern Zoroastrians is usually called
ātaškada, (‘house of fire’) where the ever-burning fire is
kept.9 Indeed, when one thinks about Iranian places of
worship, the term ‘fire-temple’ is the one immediately
5
The Rig Veda and the oldest parts of the Avesta (which are ascribed to
Zoroaster) are generally dated, mainly on the linguistic grounds, around
the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE and c. 1000 BCE
respectively. The dating of the Avesta is, of course, bound to the
question of ‘Zoroaster’s time’, see no. 12.
6
On temples in the Iranian world before the Hellenistic period, see:
Shenkar 2007.
7
Boucharlat 2005, 281.
8
See: Shenkar 2007, 175-176. On recent important discoveries of
sanctuaries in eastern Iran, see Rapin 2007, 39-42.
9
See: Boyce 1989.
117
FROM PELLA TO GANDHĀRA
Fig. 1: The Iranian World in the Hellenistic Period. Drawing by Mitia Frumin
the place of his doctrine in the broad context of other
Iranian cults? What were the stages in the development
and transformation of Zoroastrianism into the dominant
religion in the Sasanian Empire and to what extent did the
religious practices and beliefs of the Sasanian period
(recorded in Pahlavi literature) reflect those of earlier
periods? These extremely important questions for the
history of Zoroastrianism are not unanimously answered.
invoked. However, the reality is that Avesta, our oldest
written source for the Iranian religion and the royal
inscriptions of the Achaemenian kings, do not mention
such a term. It seems that the earliest certain evidence for
the existence of ‘fire-temples’ from which the ātaškada
and dar-e Mehr (‘house of Mithra’)10 of modern
Zoroastrians directly derives, is only from the Sasanian
period.11 It thus appears methodologically unsound to
apply this anachronistic term to Iranian temples before
the rise of the Sasanian dynasty.
It seems more appropriate to use the broad term ‘Iranian
temples’ to refer to temples found in the Iranian world in
the periods before the rise of the Sasanian dynasty, and to
suppose that they are connected to some various ‘Iranian
cults’ whose exact nature eludes us, but of which
Zoroastrianism as it is known from the Sasanian period
onward was obviously a part.
The same caution is probably justified regarding the term
‘Zoroastrian’ itself. Despite indefatigable scholarly
efforts, the pre-Sasanian history of the Zoroastrian faith is
still barely known. Of the beliefs and religious practices
recorded in the Avesta, we do not know for sure what
peoples, periods and places are reflected, nor do we know
when Zarathustra, the great prophet of the ancient Iranian
religion, lived and preached his teaching.12 What was the
exact nature of his teachings and reforms and what was
WESTERN IRAN
Persepolis
10
This name has been used for the fire-temple since the Islamic
conquest: Boyce 1989. However see also Boyce 1993, where she claims
that ‘dar-e mehr should have its origin in the Achaemenid period,
despite its late attestation’.
11
On fire-temples in the Sasanian period see: Keall 1971; Boucharlat
1999b.
12
The literature on ‘Zoroaster’s time and homeland’ is enormous. See
for example: Gnoli 1980; P’yankov 1996; Gnoli 2000; Kellens 2001;
Shahbazi 2002; Stausberg 2002, 21-62; Dandamaev and Lukonin 2004,
320-329; Shaked 2005, 183-187. Most scholars date his activity around
the end of the 2nd ― beginning of the 1st millennium BCE and place his
homeland in Eastern Iran.
Five temples may be attributed with relative certainty to
the Hellenistic period: four in Eastern and one in Western
Iran (Fig. 13). The temple in Western Iran called the
‘Frataraka Temple’13 was excavated by Ernst Herzfeld in
13
‘Leader’s’ or ‘Governor’s’ temple, named after the title (frataraka)
used by the dynasts of Pars during the Seleucid and Parthian period. On
frataraka, see: Frye 1984, 158-162; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 110-116;
Wiesehöfer 1994, 101-136; Wiesehöfer 2001; Panaino 2002;
Wiesehöfer 2007; Potts 2007, 272; Callieri 2007, 115-146.
118
M. SHENKAR: TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE IN THE IRANIAN WORLD IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD
Fig. 2: Frataraka Temple and the adjacent structures (after: Stronach 1985, fig. 4)
one square and stepped, the other a typical Achaemenian
torus column, probably reused from the platform
destroyed by Alexander.16 Square column bases are
unknown in Achaemenian architecture.17 These, and the
fact that the temple was not part of the royal complex on
the Persepolis platform, strongly suggest a postAchaemenian date.18
1923 and is located some 300 meters north-west of the
Persepolis platform (Figs. 2-3).14
This mud-brick edifice consisted of rooms and corridors
and an ayvān (portico) with eight columns. In the central,
four-columned hall, a stone base for a statue was placed
close to the rear wall.15 The columns were of two types:
14
Herzfeld 1976, 275; Schmidt 1953, 56; Schippmann 1971, 177-185.
For recent discussion, see: Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 226-240 and
especially: Callieri 2007, 51-68.
15
See detailed discussion in: Callieri 2007, 56-62.
16
Schmidt 1953, 56.
Stronach 1985, 615-616; Callieri 2007, 53.
18
Callieri 2007, 64.
17
119
EASTERN IRAN
The Oxus Temple
In Eastern Iran, the remains of four temples were found.
The first to consider was excavated during the 1970s and
1980s by Soviet archaeologists at Takht-i Sangin in
Bactria, at the confluence of the Vakhsh and Panj rivers.24
The excavators date the erection of the temple to the end
of the 4th, beginning of the 3rd century BCE.25 It was a
major religious centre during the rule of the Seleucid and
Greco-Bactrian kings, until it was devastated by nomad
forces in the middle of the 2nd century BCE. However, it
was subsequently restored and continued to serve as a
temple till the 4th century CE.26
The temple stood in the middle of a massive temenos
protected by four towers. Its symmetrical plan consisted
of a tetrastyle main hall surrounded by L-shaped
corridors and an eight-columned ayvān between the two
wings (Fig. 4). These wings concealed altar rooms in
which layers of ashes were found.27 Outside, two
monumental altars of dressed limestone, of purely Greek
style and technique stood in front of the wings.28
Innumerable bones of sheep and goats were found
associated with them – a practice wholly alien to
Zoroastrianism.29
Fig. 3: Frataraka Temple (after: Litvinskiy
and Pichikyan 2000, fig. 57)
In 1923 Herzfeld uncovered two reliefs in the area of the
temple depicting male and female figures in the position
of adoration.19 He thought that they were connected to the
temple cult; however, the reliefs in fact belonged to the
separate building adjacent to the temple and should
probably be dated to the later period.20 Another find of
cultic significance thought to be associated with the
temple, but whose exact find spot is unknown, is a group
of Greek dedicatory inscriptions, to Zeus Megistos,
Apollo, Helios, Artemis and Athena.21 The excavators,
Herzfeld and Schmidt, proposed that these are
interpretatio Graeca of the Iranian deities Ahura Mazdā,
Mithra and Anāhitā.22 This reflects a desire among part of
the scholars to equate Greek deities found in Iran as
representing Iranian divinities with similar characteristics
and attributes. However, in most cases, when there are no
further indications, one should be restrained from arriving
at such identifications. For instance, without additional
evidence, preferably epigraphic, we simply cannot know
whether the Iranians considered Greek imagery to
represent their own gods. The same holds true for the
inscriptions mentioning Greek divinities.
More than 5000 artifacts of various kinds – votives,
weapons, and objects of art, dating from the preAchaemenian period to the third century CE were
uncovered in the temple, scattered all over its floors or
dumped into many pits.30
The most important cultic find, dated to the Hellenistic
period (first half of the second century BCE) was the
statuette of Marsyas playing the flute, set on top of a
votive altar with a Greek inscription: Εὐχὴν ἀνέθηκεν
Ὰτροσωκης Ὸξωι (‘Atrosokes dedicated [his] vow to
Oxus’).31 In the same pit (no. 4, at the northern end of the
corridor no. 2) a small female silver statuette (height 7.6
24
The first two volumes of the final report so far published are
dedicated to the architecture and the religious life: Litvinskiy and
Pichikyan 2000; and to arms and armour: Litvinskiy 2001. Another
important publication which discusses the finds from the Oxus temple in
the broad context of Achaemenid and Hellenistic Bactria is: Pichikyan
1991. For good summaries in French, English and German respectively
see: Litvinsky and Pichikyan 1981; Litvinsky and Pichikian 1994a;
Litvinskij and Pičikjan 2002. The excavations at Takht-i Sangin were
renewed in the late 1990s, see: Drujinina, 2001, Drujinina 2008.
25
Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 183; Litvinskiy 2001, 10.
26
Litvinskiy 2001, 10. Long after the temple was destroyed the place
continued to be venerated by the local population: Litvinskiy and
Pichikyan 2000, 363-367. See also: Grenet and Drège 1987.
27
Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 98.
28
Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 169-175.
29
30
Descriptions of many of these objects are found in: Pichikyan 1991,
some are the subjects of special publications: Litvinskii and Pichikian
1994a; Litvinsky and Pichikiyan 1994b; Litvinskij and Pičikian 1995a;
Litvinskij and Pičikian 1995b; Rapin 1995; Litvinsky 2000a; Litvinskiy
2000b. See also Wood, this volume.
31
Litvinskiy, Vinogradov, Pichikjan 1985; Bernard 1987; Pichikyan
1991, 160-172. It is an interesting fact that many flutes were found in
the temple: Litvinskij and Pičikian 1995a, 149.
In the case of Persepolis, there is no evidence to support
the identification of the Greek deities with the Iranian
ones and the question of possible Greco-Iranian
syncretism in the ‘Frataraka temple’ remains open. Its
plan, lacking Greek architectural characteristics, suggests
an Oriental cult, but the pedestal found in the cella is
typical for Greek and Hellenistic marble statues, and
fragments of such a statue have apparently been
uncovered by Iranian archaeologists in recent
excavations.23 Therefore it is possible that this temple
housed a cultic statue of a deity whose identity is
unfortunately not known to us.
19
Herzfeld 1976, 286, Pl. LXXXVI.
Boyce and Grenet 1991, 117; Koch 1993, 178.
21
Herzfeld 1976, 275; Callieri 2007, 56.
22
Herzfeld 1976, 275; Schmidt 1953, 56. They are joined by
Wiesehöfer 2007, 39.
23
Callieri 2007, 61-62.
20
120
Fig. 4: The Oxus Temple (after: Litvinsky and Pichikian 2000, fig. 50)
mm, width 4.6 mm) was uncovered (Fig. 5).32 She is
dressed in chiton and himation and her bended right hand
is holding an object which has been interpreted as a
pomegranate by Uzyanov.33 Only a small fragment of the
headdress (probably a kalathos) has survived, suggesting
that it could be a goddess.
the ayvān.36 Of special interest are three heads made of
unbaked clay which were found in the eastern corridor.
Two of them, wearing a royal diadem, are apparently
portraits of both a young and an elderly Hellenistic ruler37
while the third shows a bearded man with a typical
Iranian headdress (kyrbasia).38
Also noteworthy is a clay statue (height 35 cm, width 16
cm) of a youth with a quiver, resembling Apollo (Fig.
6),34 four korai who probably belong to the early
Hellenistic style35 and fragments of a colossal bronze
statue which probably stood on a plinth at the entrance to
The excavators proposed that the plan of the Oxus
Temple is derived from the monumental Bronze Age
temples of Syria and Mesopotamia whose main features
are axial symmetry and tower-like façades.39 Despite the
36
Judging by the preserved fragments of feet (65 cm.) the statue could
have been as tall as 5 m. Based on the material, which is highly unusual
for the local artistic tradition and on the stance (left foot brought
forward) the excavators think that the style of the statue was Greek:
Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 123. The finds from recent excavations
indicate that the statue was probably four-footed: Drujinina and Inagaki
2008, 103-104.
37
They are identified as Seleucid kings by Pichikyan 1991, 189-194 and
as Greco-Bactrian kings or governors of Bactria, kings’ philoi by
Litvinskij 2003, 51, 55.
38
Pichikyan 1991, 194-196, calls it ‘a head of priest’ but there are
absolutely no indications for this identification, as nothing seems to
suggest a religious connection. Perhaps it should rather be considered as
a representation of a donor.
39
Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 242-247. This is supported in a recent
study by Korovchinskiy 2007, 18-19. Victor Sarianidi 1996, 325 argued
that some architectural features of the Oxus Temple are already found in
the temples of Margiana dated around 1000 BCE.
32
The statuette is discussed in: Uzyanov 1987. However, in the first
volume of the final report Litvinskiy and Pichikyan do not list this
object among the finds of pit 4 in corridor 2: Litvinskiy and Pichikyan
2000, 86-87, nor the article of Uzyanov is mentioned in their
bibliography. The statuette was, however, published by Pičikjan in
Zeymal’ 1985, n. 223. It is dated by Uzyanov 1987, 294, ‘not later than
2nd century BCE’ on stylistic grounds and according to the excavators,
the latest object in this pit is the votive altar of Oxus with a Greek
dedication: Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 87. But in the previous
publication of the statuette, Pichikyan, attributed it to the 1st centuries
CE: Zeymal’ 1985, n. 223.
33
Uzyanov 1987, 291.
34
Pichikyan 1991, 181-182. B. Litvinsky argues that this statue
represents a boy or Eros, and dates it on stylistic grounds to the 3rd – 2nd
centuries BCE: Litvinsky 2004, 69.
35
Pichikyan 1991, 182-183; Litvinskii and Pichikian 1994a, 59-60.
121
Hasanlu in Western Iran. They are also frequent in
Achaemenian architecture at the royal seats of Western
Iran such as Persepolis and Susa.42 In recent years two
Achaemenid sanctuaries incorporating tetrastyle halls
were excavated at Sangyr-tepe and Bandikhan in Eastern
Iran.43
It is worth noting that four-columned halls formed a core
for a number of religious and secular buildings in the
Iranian world in subsequent periods, such as the Parthian
edifices at Old Nisa,44 Mansur-depe,45 Nippur and Assur,
the so-called āyadanā in Susa,46 the temples of Bard-e
Neshandeh47 and Kuh-i Khwaja, which most probably
should also be attributed to the Parthian period (247 BCE
– 224 CE), the Kushan royal temple at Surkh Kotal
(second century CE),48 the sacred complex of Dedoplis
Mindori in Georgia (2nd-1st centuries BCE),49 the
Chorasmian palace at Topraq-Qala (3rd-6th centuries CE)50
and the Sogdian temples of Panjikent (5th-8th centuries
CE).51 A tetrastyle core also features in the temples of
Sur, Sahr and Si‘a in Hauran, Syria (1st century BCE-1st
century CE).52
Fig. 5: Silver statuette of a goddess wearing a kalathos
(?), The Oxus Temple (after: Uzyanov 1987, fig. 2)
Therefore it seems that the four-columned hall as an
architectural element has a long history in the Iranian
world and it appears not only in temples, as was
sometimes claimed in the past,53 but also in secular and
residential buildings.54 It is evident that in temples it was
one of the central spaces of the edifice, but its exact
function and the nature of the rituals performed there are
unknown. In secular buildings the four-columned halls
seem to have various functions, such as gates, assembly
halls and probably even store rooms.
The altar rooms filled with ashes in the Oxus Temple
indicate that activities and rituals connected to fire
42
Hopkins even thought that the tetrastyle hall was an Achaemenid
development: Hopkins 1942, 16-17. Colledge also assumed that this
‘type of “centralized square” hall was perhaps contributed by
Achaemenid Iran’: Colledge 1986, 10. For the most recent discussion of
the origin and significance of the columned halls, see Gopnik 2010.
43
See: Rapin, Isamiddinov and Khasanov 2010, 21-22, and Borofka
2009.
44
Pilipko 1996.
45
Košelenko, Lašhin, Novikov 1989; Košelenko, Lašhin, Novikov
2000.
46
This building excavated, in the 19th century, was for a long time
considered a ‘fire-temple’ of the Achaemenid period: Schippmann
1971, 266-274; Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 209-216. However, it
should probably be dated to the later Hellenistic-Parthian period and its
cultic interpretation is very doubtful: Boucharlat 1997, 62-63;
Boucharlat 2005, 242.
47
Ghirshman 1976, 5-55; Schippmann 1971, 251-258.
48
Schlumberger 1961; Schlumberger 1975; Fussman 1983;
Schlumberger, Le Berre, Fussman 1983.
49
Gagošidze 1983; Gagošidze 1992.
50
Rapoport 1994; See also: Grenet 1986.
51
Škoda 1987; Shkoda 1996; Shkoda 1998 and especially: Shkoda
2009.
52
On these temples see: Netzer 2003, 103-109. On Nabatean temple
architecture, see also: Tholbecq 1997.
53
Most recently: Sarianidi 1996, 321.
54
Pugachenkova 1973. This is also supported by the latest
investigations at Takht-i Sangin conducted by A. Drujinina, who
supposes that one of the altar rooms (5) was used as ātaŝhgāh already
from the earliest period, see Druzhinina 2010, 230.
Fig. 6: Statue of Apollo (?), The Oxus Temple
(after: Zejmal’ 1985, fig. 204)
close similarity between the layouts (especially the towerlike façade), it is difficult to bridge the chronological and
geographical gap.
Tracing the evolution of the central, four-columned hall is
of great importance in understanding the origin of both
the Oxus and the Frataraka temples.40 An open-air altar
surrounded by four pillars was part of the edifice of
Jarkutan in Northern Bactria between 1400-1000 BCE.41
Such halls already appeared between 1000-800 BCE in
40
See detailed discussion in: Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 259-264.
Askarov and Širinov 1991; Askarov and Shirinov 1994; Görsdorf and
Huff 2001.
41
122
probably occupied an important place in the temple cult.55
According to P. Bernard the evidence for the extensive
use of fire in the altar rooms (layers of ashes) dates only
to the Kushan (1st-2nd centuries CE) and later periods, and
the original function of these rooms is uncertain.56 However, the excavators claim that it could be safely established that the altar, in at least one room, is contemporary
with the wall, which was erected in the Hellenistic
period.57 Water, the element associated with the river god
Oxus, also seems to have had a significant part in the
temple cult.58 This is not surprising, since fire and water
played a major role in ancient Iranian religious practice.59
The god Oxus-Wakhš was apparently the chief deity of
the temple.65 However, the cultic and constructional
duality of the Oxus Temple (a pair of altars in the altar
rooms in the wings, a pair of monumental altars in the
courtyard, a pair of cylinder bases in the central hall) may
suggest that another deity beside Oxus was worshipped in
the temple. If the silver statuette, mentioned above,
indeed dates to the Hellenistic period, one should not
exclude the possibility that it depicts a goddess
worshipped alongside Oxus, though any attempt to
identity her is speculative at best.66 Stressing the
importance of water in the cult of the temple, the
excavators propose that the second deity of the Oxus
Temple was the Iranian fertility and water goddess
Anāhitā.67 However, her cult is not attested in Eastern Iran
until the Kushano-Sasanian period.
Although the Greek altars, a statue of Apollo (?) and
numerous donations of objects of Hellenic art could
indicate that a Greek cult occupied a prominent place at
the Temple of Oxus, the temple was undoubtedly also
attended by the local Bactrians. Greco-Iranian cultic
hybridization comes to fruition in the Dedication of
Atrosokes mentioned above. An individual with an
Iranian name made an offering to a god called Oxus, as
attested by the Greek dedication inscribed on the altar. In
all probability, ‘Oxus’ refers to the Iranian god Wakhš, an
ancient Iranian name of the Amu-Darja River.60 The
visual representation on top of the altar of the Greek
Marsyas, also a river deity from Asia Minor (Phrygia).61
However, this representation did not became a standard
iconography of Oxus, since on the coin of the Kushan
king Huviška (150/51-191/92 CE), Wakhš (OAΧϷO) is
presented as a bearded man with a nimbus surrounding
his head and holding a staff (or perhaps a trident or spear)
in his right hand and a fish in his left.62 It seems that by
the Kushan period, the iconographic type of Marsyas
playing the flute had been abandoned and forgotten (or,
perhaps, the statuette from the Temple of Oxus is an
example of the unique type which did not gain wide
popularity), and the representation of Oxus was probably
being modeled on the image of Poseidon as he appears on
the coins of the Indo-Scythian king Maues (3rd quarter of
the 2nd century BC).63 Moreover, in the Sogdian period,
the probable depiction of the worship of Oxus in form of
a horse is found on the Sogdian funerary coach, known as
‘The Miho coach’.64
The numerous finds of purely Greek art may be
considered as evidence for the cult of a Greek deity,
perhaps Apollo, who is possibly represented by the statue
found in the temple. However, examples of non-Greek art
(such as the clay head of a bearded man with a kybrasia),
the dedication of Atrosokes and the very architecture of
the building, indicates that the temple was undoubtedly a
major religious centre for the local Bactrians. If we
are to try to suggest interpretatio iranica for the son of
Zeus and Leto, Mithra and Tīr are the attested
identifications.68 It is perhaps significant that the
representation of Tīr (identified by the inscription
‘TEIPO’) – on the unique coin of the Kushan king
Huviška – shows him as a feminine youth holding a bow
in one hand and pulling out an arrow from the quiver with
the other.69
Vakhsh and Panj rivers: Grenet and Drège 1987, this might possibly
reflect a survival of local traditions of sanctity related to the long
destroyed Temple of Oxus: Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 315-316.
For the discussion and interpretations of the motif of the horse in the
Sogdian art see: Riboud 2003.
65
Bernard 1994a, 97-98; This is confirmed by a recently found Greek
dedicatory inscription: ‘Seiromois from Molrparles, the son of
Nemiskos, presented this 7 talents bronze vessel to the newly revived
Oxus’: Drujinina 2008. It is plausible that Oxus-Wakhš was one of the
most important divinities in Bactria. As late as 7th and 8th c. CE, several
Bactrian documents name him ‘The king of gods’: Sims-Williams 2001;
Sims-Williams 2003. He was a popular deity not only in Bactria, but
also in other regions of Eastern Iran, as is indicated by many personal
names containing the name of this god. The inscription on a coin of
Andragoras, the ruler of Parthia, demonstrates that Oxus was probably
worshipped in Parthia and Hyrcania: Lerner 1999, 25. Wakhš was also
very prominent deity in Sogdiana where many anthroponyms contain
his name: Livshits 2004, 190; Grenets 2004, 377. Korovchinskiy at first
thought that the cult celebrated in the Oxus Temple was connected to
Mithra: Korovchinskiy 2001. However, in his dissertation he changed
his mind and suggested that the Oxus Temple was dedicated to Oxus
and the goddess Nana: Korovchinskiy 2007, 18-22. See also: Boyce and
Grenet 1991, 179-181. On Nana and her cult, see: D’Yakanova and
Smirnova 1967; Azarpay 1976; Tanabe 1995; Grenet and Marshak
1998; Potts 2001; Ambos 2003; Ghose 2006.
66
For instance, Uzyanov 1987, 294 identifies her as syncretistic Magna
Mater, combining the iconographic traits of ‘local goddess of fertility,
Greek Demeter, Aphrodite Urania and Anāhitā’.
67
68
See the comprehensive discussion and in-depth analysis in: Bernard
1990b, 52-62.
69
Rosenfeld 1967, 101, pl. X, 204; Bernard 1990b, 55, fig. 23. In
Sogdian religious iconography Tīr was probably represented as a fourhanded deity holding an arrow: Grenet and Marshak 1998, 1015.
55
The excavators decisively identified these rooms as ātašgāh (‘fire
place’), repository for a sacred fire and ashes in a Zoroastrian firetemple: Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 98, 206; Grenet 2004, 378.
56
Bernard 1994a, 86-90. As F. Grenet notes, ‘the facts were not
properly registered and are now beyond recovery’ Grenet 2004, 378.
57
Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 105. However, much of the
information concerning these rooms is ambiguous: Grenet (forthcoming
b) n. 98.
58
See: Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 308-312.
59
Bernard 1994a, 109.
60
61
Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 304; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 177,
180. Göbl 1984, 241/1.
62
Rosenfeld 1967, 92, pl. VIII, 155.
63
Rosenfeld 1967, 92.
64
Grenet 2007, 410. The couch is kept in the Miho Museum in Japan.
The discoveries of additional tombs of Sogdian merchants in northern
China in recent years suggest that the Miho couch comes from Anyang
region and should be dated to the second half of the 6th century CE. See:
Marshak 2001, 233-244; Grenet 2007, 409-410. It is noteworthy, that
one 8th century CE Chinese source even speaks of a temple with a
remarkable statue of a horse which was located at the confluence of the
123
Fig. 7: The ‘Dioscuri Temple’, earliest stage (after: Kruglikova 1977, fig. 2)
associated with the wall, the fresco was dated to the end
of the Greco-Bactrian period.74
Dilberjin
The site of Dilberjin is located in the desert of northern
Afghanistan, some 40 km from the city of Balkh. The
remains of a large, fortified city dating to the Hellenistic
and Kushan periods were uncovered at the site by an
Afghan-Soviet expedition during the 1970s.70 According
to the excavators, it was founded by the end of the GrecoBactrian era (c. 150 BCE), and existed till the 5th century
CE.71
Several attempts have been made to reconsider this dating
and to attribute the mural and thus also the erection of the
temple to the Kushan or even later periods.75 On the other
hand, if the paintings were indeed of the Kushan period,
one would expect to recognize in their iconography the
strong admixture of Iranian and Indian art which
characterizes the period, while the Dioscuri from
Dilberjin are ‘of pure Greek form and in a broadly Greek
style’.76 Despite the fact that only one Greco-Bactrian
coin was found under the earliest floor in the temple77, the
Greek style of the Dioscuri painting, devoid of any
visible Oriental influence,78 and the ceramics, many types
of which fit in well with the Hellenistic assemblages of
Ai Khanoum,79 indicate that the construction of the
The temple was erected in the middle of a temenos in the
northeastern corner of the site, close to the city wall. Its
plan consists of three discrete units: a cella surrounded by
three corridors and additional rooms arranged on either
side of the entrance, which was on the eastern side (Fig.
7). Benches were set up close to the walls of the side
rooms and along the outer wall at the back of the central
hall.72
74
Kruglikova 1976; Kruglikova 1986, 106.
Fitzsimmons 1996; Bernard 1996, 236; Lo Muzio 1999.
76
Boardman 1993, 103. According to Kossolapov and Marshak, the
paintings are ‘probably Hellenistic or, at least, preserving the Hellenistic
tradition’see Kossolapv and Marshak 1999, 24. Boyce and Grenet 1991,
173 n. 91, also think that ‘their type is purely Greek’. It is interesting to
compare them with the image of Dioscuri, as identified by Frantz
Grenet, from a 2nd century CE wall painting from Dalverzintepe: Grenet
(forthcoming a). The ‘Oriental’ style of the Dalverzintepe mural differs
significantly from that of the Dilberjin Dioscuri.
77
The bronze coin of king Euthydemos I probably dated between 235200 BCE: Kruglikova 1986, 18.
78
The excavator, I. Kruglikova, emphasizes that the style and the
technique of the painting is wholly different from the later period
murals uncovered in Dilberjin: Kruglikova 1976, 91. On the technical
peculiarities of the Dioscuri painting, see: Buryj 1976, 111-113.
79
Kruglikova 1986, 21-23. According to Bernard the ceramics collected
from the earliest stages of the temple allow its dating to the Hellenistic
period. However, B. Lyonett specifies that this material ‘is not
incompatible’ with a slightly later date, after the fall of the GrecoBactrian kingdom: Bernard 1990a, 55.
75
The excavations of the earliest stage of the temple did not
yield any significant finds except for wall paintings of
standing Dioscuri which decorated the western wall of
the ayvān, flanking the entrance (height 2.15 m., width
1.60 m) (Fig. 8).73 The divine twins are depicted naked,
with two white horses, and wearing their distinctive pylos
hats. Based on its artistic style and on ceramic material
70
Kruglikova 1974; Kruglikova and Pugachenkova 1977; Kruglikova
1977, 407-427; Kruglikova 1986; Bernard 1996.
71
Kruglikova 1977, 407. Some architectural remains and ceramics with
parallels in the material of the Achaemenid period were also found at
Dilberjin: Dolgorukov 1984, 75-77.
72
The most detailed publication of the temple is: Kruglikova 1986, 634.
73
Kruglikova 1974, 22-24; Kruglikova 1976, 88-93.
124
Fig. 8: Mural painting showing the Dioscuri, The ‘Dioscuri Temple’ (after: Kruglikova 1979, fig. 52)
goddess Nana, the most important female deity in Bactria
and Sogdiana whose connection to the moon is wellknown.
Dioscuri temple should rather be dated to the Hellenistic
period.
It seems unlikely that the temple at Dilberjin was
dedicated to the Dioscuri. This was a very widespread
motif in Hellenistic and Greco-Roman art.80 In the Greek
world, the divine twins were frequently described as ‘gate
keepers’ and the location of the painting suggests that this
could also be their function at Dilberjin.81 They are often
depicted standing on either side of a deity; in the West,
this would be a male supreme god, for example Zeus,
while in the East the Dioscuri are more commonly shown
flanking a female deity, probably connected to the
moon.82
It has been proposed to link the plan of the Dioscuri
temple to the plan of the Ai Khanum temples, which I
shall discuss shortly, or to look for possible prototypes in
Bactrian secular architecture.86 It seems, however, that the
layout of the Dilberdjin temple is in fact very close to the
Oxus Temple at Takht-i Sangin.87 The two temples are
composed of three main units,88 a central hall surrounded
by corridors and side rooms which open to the courtyard.
The main difference between them seems to be the
absence of columns in the Dioscuri temple, which,
together with a dearth of valuable finds and offerings,
indicates that it was a relatively modest building
compared with the monumentality and extraordinary
wealth of the Oxus Temple.
Possible evidence for the cult of a goddess was found on
wall paintings in two rooms excavated not far from the
temple.83 The mural depicts a female head wearing a
helmet, an image widely interpreted as Athena-Anāhitā84
or Athena-Arštāt.85 But there is no direct connection
between these rooms and the Dioscuri temple and they
are also dated to the later Kushan period. Thus the
identity of the principal deity of the temple remains
obscure. Although we can speculate that she could be the
The temple of Mohra Maliaran at Taxila, dated to the 1st
century BCE, could be attributed to the same type and
perhaps regarded as an ‘intermediate’ variant between the
Oxus and the Dioscuri temples.89 It consists of a
rectangular cella with two columns and four additional
columns set in an ayvān. Another interesting example of
this architectural type is the Kushan palace/temple at
Khalchayan which has two columns in the cella like that
80
For a survey of iconography of the Dioscuri, see: Azarpay 1988; Lo
Muzio 1999, 46-49.
81
Boyce and Grenet 1991, 173. However see Bernard 1996 234, who
thinks that the temple was dedicated to the Greek Dioscuri and
Kruglikova 1976, 88 who proposes the identification with the Indian
Ašvins.
82
Lo Muzio 1999, 46-49.
83
Kruglikova 1976, 96-100; Kruglikova 1986, 109-110.
84
Kruglikova 1986, 110; Lo Muzio 1999, 58.
85
Grenet 1987.
86
Bernard 1988, 55; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 172; Rapin 1994, 136.
Bernard 1994a, 96-97.
88
This layout is known also in other examples of Bactrian architecture,
but it is not unique to Bactria as claimed by Rapin 1994, 136.
89
Rapin 1995, 284-287. Although a non Iranian cult, perhaps a
Buddhist one, was celebrated in this temple.
87
125
Fig. 9: The ‘Temple with Indented Niches’, Aï Khanum, stage III (after: Bernard 1970, fig. 16)
probably Eucratadea, was founded by Seleucus I around
300 BCE and plundered and devastated by the Saka
nomads invading from the north some 155 years later.92 It
had a triangular shape (1600 x 1800 m.) and was divided
into two main parts, an acropolis (60 m. height) and a
lower town (400 x 1800 m.) where most of the public
buildings were located. The city’s necropolis was located
outside the massive city ramparts built of mud-bricks.
The architecture of Ai Khanum displays a blend of Greek
and Oriental elements. Along with the gymnasium,93
theatre,94 fountain95 and a heroon of the city’s oikist
(founder),96 – institutions characteristic of a typical Greek
of Mohra Maliaran and one row of four columns in
contrast to two such rows in the Frataraka and Oxus
temples.90
Aï Khanum
The remaining two temples dated to the Hellenistic
period were uncovered during the French excavations at
the Greco-Bactrian city of Ai Khanum, which occupied a
strategic position at the confluence of the two rivers,
Amu-Darya (Oxus) and its tributary Kokcha in northern
Bactria.91 The city, whose name in the later period was
92
Bernard 2008, 87, 104.
Bernard 1975, 189-193; Bernard 1976a, 293-303; Bernard 1978,
421-429; Veuve 1987; Bernard 2008, 89-91; Bernard 2009, 4344.
94
Bernard 1976a, 314-322; Bernard 1978, 429-441; Bernard 2008, 8991; Bernard 2009, 44-45.
95
Bernard 1976a, 307-314; Bernard 2009, 45; Pichikyan 1991, 224-225.
96
Bernard, Le Berre, Stucki 1973. Two additional mausoleums were
uncovered at the site: Bernard 1975, 180-189; Bernard 2009, 47-49;
Pichikyan 1991, 232-239.
90
Pugachenkova 1966; Pugachenkova 1971. For the most recent survey,
see: Bernard 2008 and especially Bernard 2009, which summarizes the
research done by the DAFA at the site
91
Several final reports have already been published so far in Mémoires
de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan (vols. 21; 2632) along with numerous preliminary reports written by the principal
excavator of Ai Khanum Paul Bernard: Bernard 1966; Bernard 1967a;
Bernard 1968; Bernard 1969; Bernard 1970; Bernard 1971; Bernard
1973; Bernard 1974; Bernard 1975; Bernard 1976a; Bernard 1978. The
pre-Hellenistic name of the site was probably *Oskobora: Rapin 2005.
93
126
city – a huge palace complex,97 residential mansions, and
temples followed Oriental architectural traditions. 98
What What seems to be the principal temple of Ai
Khanum was an almost square building which stood on a
three-stepped podium within a wide temenos on the main
street of the city, close to the palace.99 The exterior of its
massive mud-brick walls was decorated with indented
niches which gave the edifice its modern name – ‘Temple
with Indented Niches’ (Fig. 9).100 The temple had a flat
roof with a decorative cornice. A vestibule led to a cella
divided into three rooms, a central one flanked by two
smallersacristies. Marble fragments of a foot (Fig. 10)
and a hand were all that was left of a huge acrolithic
statue, three times a man’s size, which once stood in the
cultic niche in the back wall of the central hall.101
Fig. 10: Fragment of a foot of a huge acrolithic statue,
‘Temple with Indented Niches’, Aï Khanum
(after: Bernard 1969, fig. 16)
Three mud-brick bases were found on both sides of a
pronaos, close to the walls. It seems that mud and stucco
statues once stood on them.102 French archaeologists have
succeeded in reconstructing two ‘masks’ from the
fragments, male and female, which may be attributed to
the Greek sculptural tradition.103
Another significant find at the temple was a gilded silver
plate probably originally nailed to a staff and which
served as a cultic standard (Fig. 11).104 A goddess that is
generally interpreted as Cybele, is shown standing in a
chariot driven by Nike and drawn by two lions across a
mountainous landscape towards a priest in a Syrian-style
outfit who is standing on a stepped altar, and is placing an
incense burner on it. Another priest marches behind the
chariot, holding a parasol above the goddesses. A star, the
crescent moon and the sun-Helios are depicted above this
procession.
Paul Bernard was of the opinion that the plate was
imported from Syria, since the scene is typical for
northern Syria and the priest’s garments resemble those
97
Bernard and Le Berre 1973; Bernard 1976a, 288-293; Bernard 1978,
444-461; Bernard 1994b, 110; Bernard 2008, 88-89; Bernard 2009, 4143.
98
Pichikyan 1991, 114; Bernard 2008, 91-92; Bernard 2009, 41-43.
99
The first temple was constructed under Antiochus I and the second
Greco-Bactrian temple was built during the reign of Diodotus II:
Martinez-Sève 2010.
100
Also known as temple à redans or temple à niches indentées. Only
the small finds from the temple have been fully published so far:
Francfort 1984. For preliminary reports and discussion of architecture
and finds see: Bernard 1970, 321-348; Bernard 1971, 414-432; Bernard
1989; Bernard 1990a, 51-53; Downey 1988, 65-73; Hannestad and Potts
1990, 93-95; Pichikyan 1991, 239-243; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 165171; Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 283-289; Bernard 2008, 92-93;
Bernard 2009, 49-51, and especially the recent and very important
article by Martinez-Sève, who is currently preparing the final report on
‘The Temple with Indented Niches’, to be published in the Mémoirs de
DAFA.
101
Bernard 1969, 338-341; Pichikyan 1991, 245-246.
102
Bernard 1969, 344; Pichikyan 1991, 249.
103
Boyce and Grenet 1991, 169 proposed that these could be the images
of Greek donors. According to Korovchinskiy 2007, 12 there are
absolutely no physiological indications that one of the ‘masks’ is
female, the faces are possibly the images of male twins – the Dioscuri
who are connected to Zeus.
104
Bernard 1970, 339-347; Francfort 1984, 93-105; Pichikyan 1991,
256-259.
Fig. 11: The ‘Cybele plate’, ‘Temple with Niches’,
Aï Khanum (after: Bernard 2008, fig. 23)
of priests of Atargatis.105 Pugachenkova speculated that
this scene could depict a true historical event – the
transportation of a monumental statue of Cybele to
Bactria.106 Although the plate was found in one of the
smaller rooms of the cella, it remains difficult to decide if
it originally belonged to the temple or perhaps was
brought there later, after the temple was devastated and
turned into a storage place107 On the other hand, the
remains of a plate showing a lion harnessed to a chariot
were discovered in the Oxus Temple at Takht-i Sangin.108
If the plate from the Oxus Temple depicted a very similar
scene, the relevance of the ‘Cybele plate’ to the cult of
105
Bernard 1970, 345; Francfort 1984, 98, 102-103.
Pugachenkova 1974, 125.
107
Bernard 2008, 104.
108
Pichikyan 1991, 103-104. It is noteworthy that a plaque depicting
Helios was also found in the Oxus temple, see Litvinsky 2000b.
106
127
the ‘Temple with Indented Niches’ seems to be
reasonable. Moreover, it prompts important questions
regarding the possible connection between the cults of the
two temples.
statue that stood in the central hall should be interpreted
as the remains of the chief deity venerated in the temple.
The pure Greek naturalistic style of the fingers and a
winged thunderbolt which decorates the sandal, suggest
that they were once part of a statue of Zeus.117 However,
some scholars have been skeptical about the possibility
that a Greek god was worshipped in a purely Oriental
building and proposed that a syncretistic Greco-Oriental
deity was the lord of the ‘Temple with Indented
Niches’.118 In his early publications, the excavator of Ai
Khanum, Paul Bernard, cautiously proposed that it should
be identified with Ahura Mazdā, as he is known in the
royal cult of Antiochus I at Commagene.119
It was noted by the scholars who discussed the ‘Temple
with Indented Niches’ that its layout follows an Oriental
or more specifically, Mesopotamian architectural
tradition.109 Interesting attempts have been made to draw
parallels with northern Syrian temples of the 3rd and 2nd
millennia BCE110 but the chronological gap is too big to
be effectively bridged. There is also a theoretical
possibility that the layout of the ‘Temple with Indented
Niches’ could be the Hellenistic continuation of a
Bactrian architecture of the Achaemenian period, but
examples of such architecture are still to be found.111
Vessels buried in the temple podium probably indicate
that libations were part of the cultic practice. Based on
that evidence and on the fact that on coins of the GrecoIndian king Heliocles I, Zeus is depicted with rays of
light around his head, and during the reign of Hermaeus
and Amynthas he even wears a ‘Phrygian cap’, Franz
Grenet suggested that in Eastern Iran Zeus was identified
with Mithra, a solar deity who had some chthonic
characteristics, and not with Ahura Mazdā, and thus
Zeus-Mithra could be the god of the ‘Temple with
Indented Niches’.120 Further suggestions seek to identify
the Zeus of Ai Khanum with the Syrian Hadad121 or
propose that a Seleucid king was worshipped in the
temple as Zeus.122
The prototype for the plan of the ‘Temple with Indented
Niches’ could be the Neo-Babylonian ‘Temple A’ at
Ashur.112 This distinctive rectangular, nearly square, plan
of a tripartite cella, entered via a vestibule, appears in
Mesopotamia also in a later, Parthian period in the
temples of Dura-Europos (especially the Temples of
Artemis and of Zeus Megistos).113 This indicates the
continuity of this type in Mesopotamia. Probably under
Parthian influence, a very similar layout also appears in
three late Nabatean temples (Qasr Bint Firaun in Petra,
Qasr Rabba, Dibon).114
The high-stepped podium on which the Ai Khanum
temple stood is apparently part of the Iranian cultic
tradition and is frequently found in Iranian architecture,
the most famous examples being the mausoleum of Cyrus
the Great at Pasargadae.115 The initial prototype behind
these podiums could be the ziggurats of Mesopotamia
and Elam,116 but it seems that during the Achaemenid
period it was fully absorbed into the eclectic imperial
architecture.
A few more words should be said about the significance
of Hadad. This Semitic storm-god was introduced in Iran
at the beginning of the 2nd millennia BCE and became a
part of the Elamite pantheon.123 He is mentioned in the
Persepolis Fortification Tablets and was probably
considered a native god by the inhabitants of Achaemenid
Fars and its rulers,124 an example of the Iranian and
Elamite religious acculturation, which was actually the
Persian Persepolis pantheon.125 Therefore it would not be
surprising to find Hadad worshipped in Hellenistic
Bactria, but we do not possess any decisive evidence for
this.
Despite the rich finds made in the temple, it is not easy to
establish what deity or deities were worshipped in the
‘Temple with Indented Niches’. Fragments of a colossal
Together with all of these attempts at interpretation, it
should be noted that the official pantheon of the GrecoBactrian kings, as demonstrated by their coinage, mostly
represents deities of a purely Greek iconography,126 and
until a relatively late period we do not find iconographic
109
For example: Pugachenkova 1982, 34-35; Colledge 1986, 10;
Downey 1988, 73; Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 287; Bernard 2008,
93.
110
Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 296-299. Supported by:
Korovchinskiy 2007, 9.
111
Bernard 1990a, 52. Mairs (forthcoming), tries to find additional
arguments for this.
112
Downey 1988, 67. For the description of this temple, see: Downey
1988, 149-151.
113
Bernard 1990a, 51-52. On the temples of Dura-Europos, see:
Downey 1988, 76-131.
114
Netzer 2003, 68-72, 99-102.
115
Stronach 1978, 24-44. As well as Achaemenid enigmatic tower-like
structures, Ka’aba-i Zardusht at Naqsh-i Rustam and Zindan-i Suleyman
at Pasargadae: Bernard 1990a, 53. On the function of these structures
with a summary of previous scholarship, see: Potts 2007, 278295.
116
Zournatzi 1993. However, see Ghirshman 1964, 222 who thinks that
‘The Iranian terrace derives from Urartu rather than from Mesopotamia’
and Boardman 2000, 53-61 who points out Lydian prototypes and
Lydo-Ionian building techniques and features. For the in-depth
discussion and evaluation of the architectural antecedents for the Tomb
of Cyrus, see Stronach 1978, 39-44.
117
Bernard 1990a, 53.
For example: Downey 1988, 73.
119
Bernard 1974, 298. On Commagene and its royal cult see:
Waldmann 1991; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 309-352. Additional evidence
for the identification of Zeus with Ahura Mazdā is citied in: Boyce and
Grenet 1991, 205, 261.
120
Grenet 1991; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 162-165. This suggestion was
also adopted by Paul Bernard in his recent publications: Bernard 2008,
93; Bernard 2009, 51.
121
Francfort 1984, 124-125; Korovchinskiy 2007, 4-5.
122
Abdullaev 1994, 243.
123
Henkelman 2008, 311.
124
Henkelman 2008, 305.
125
Henkelman 2008, 58-59, 323.
126
Among their main gods are: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, Athena,
Artemis, Nike, Dionysus, Poseidon and Tyche.
118
128
evidence for syncretism and hybridization with Oriental
gods and goddesses.127
considered an interpretatio semitica of Ahura Mazdā.138
What gives this prospect even more weight is the
substitution of Ahura Mazdā with Bel in a copy of
Behistun inscription found in Babylon,139 which provides
important evidence that the syncretism between these two
deities might go back to the Achaemenian period.
According to some scholars, the presence of a small
chapel in the temenos, various objects depicting females,
and the ‘Cybele plate’ suggest that possibly another deity,
perhaps a goddess, was worshipped in the sacred precinct
of the ‘Temple with Indented Niches’.128 The available
evidence does not permit us to safely establish whether
this was Anāhitā,129 Nana,130 Cybele, Atargatis131 or some
composite syncretistic female deity who combined the
attributes and qualities of these Oriental goddesses.132 The
situation is very similar to the statuette from the Oxus
temple who, like the goddess on the ‘Cybele plate’, also
wears kalathos.
It is very tempting, therefore, to connect the Bel from the
Aramaic documents of the Achaemenian period, the
‘Zeus’ of the ‘Temple with Indented Niches’ and the
Kushan ŌOROMOZDO into a continuous, uninterrupted
tradition of worship of a hybrid Zeus-Belos-Ahura Mazdā
in Bactria, spanning from the Achaemenian to the Kushan
periods, but the current evidence might still appear too
fragmentary and insufficient for such an ambitious
hypothesis. However it is should be noted that the
recording of libation (zwtr’), as part of the cult of Bel in
the Aramaic document cited above, may indicate that the
vessels found buried in the temple podium were used in a
cult of Zeus-Belos.
Recently, new textual evidence of extraordinary
significance has become available, which may shed light
on the mysteries of the ‘Temple with Indented Niches’ at
Ai Khanum. This consists of 4th century BCE Aramaic
documents from Bactria, which have been translated by
Shaul Shaked and Joseph Naveh. One of these documents
mentions a ‘Libation for the temple, to Bel’.133 The
existence of a temple (bagina) of Bel in Bactria as early
as the Achaemenian period indicates that a
Mesopotamian cult and perhaps also Mesopotamian
temple architecture were part of the Bactrian cultural
landscape even before the Macedonian conquest, and
could therefore provide an explanation for the
architectural layout of the Ai Khanum temples and for the
identity of the principal deity of the ‘Temple with
Indented Niches’.
One can speculate that a local Bactrian population (or
perhaps even a population of Mesopotamian descent
living in Bactria before the Hellenistic period), settled in
Ai Khanum by the Seleucid king, brought with it a
Mesopotamian cult and took an active part in the
construction of temples according to the Mesopotamian
architectural tradition.
The second temple at Ai Khanum was uncovered some
100 meters to the north of the city’s fortifications.140 This
‘Extramural Temple’ had a layout very similar to that of
the ‘Temple with Indented Niches’, and shows that the
Mesopotamian plan chosen for the main temple was not
accidental (Fig. 12). Like the ‘Temple with Indented
Niches’ it stood on a three-stepped podium and the
exterior walls were decorated with indented niches.
However, instead of a roofed vestibule, the ‘Extramural
Temple’ was entered via an open courtyard. Three
separate staircases led to three juxtaposed rooms. This
layout is remarkably similar to the temple of Zeus
Megistos at Dura-Europos.141
The syncretism between Zeus and Bel (under the name of
Zeus-Belos) is a well known phenomenon in
Mesopotamia, Elymais and Syria.134 Franz Grenet has
pointed out similarities between the appearance of Zeus
on the coins of Seleucia on the Tigris minted during the
reign of the Parthian king Phraates II (129-128 BCE) and
the deity ŌOROMOZDO (‘Ahura Mazdā’, on two types
abbreviated to ŌROM), on the coins of Huviška.135 Two
deities are shown wearing a polos and if the ‘Zeus’ on a
coin from Seleucia is indeed Zeus-Belos, as argued by
Grenet, and not, for instance, Sarapis, whose cult is also
attested in the Hellenistic East,136 the identification of
Zeus-Belos with Ahura Mazdā may be considered a
possibility. One Aramaic inscription from Arebsun
(Cappadocia) names Bel as the brother and the husband
of ‘Mazdayasnian religion’.137 Bel here is usually
The ‘Extramural Temple’ was found devoid of any finds.
It is thus impossible to establish who was worshipped in
this monumental structure. It has been proposed that the
cella, divided into three chambers, each entered via a
separate staircase, might indicate a triad of deities, the
possible contenders being Ahura Mazdā, Mithra and
Anāhitā.142
127
Boyce and Grenet 1991, 160-165.
Korovchinskiy 2007, 9.
129
Downey 1988, 73.
130
Korovchinskiy 2007, 4-5.
131
Francfort 1984, 124-125.
132
Korovchinskiy 2002 and 2007, 4, 9-15 thinks that she combined the
characteristics of all these deities.
133
zwtr’ ‘l bgn’ lbyl (‫)זותרא על בגנא לביל‬: Naveh and Shaked
(forthcoming) C1:37.
134
See for example, Downey 2004.
135
Grenet 1991, 148.
136
Boyce and Grenet 1991, 25.
137
See Boyce 1982, 274-275; Lemaire 2003.
128
In addition, a third religious monument was uncovered on
the acropolis – a monumental stepped platform placed in
the wide temenos, which probably served as an open-air
138
Boyce 1982, 275; De Jong 1997, 246, no. 35.
Siedl 1999, 109-110; Calmeyer-Siedl 1999, 229.
140
Bernard 1974, 287-289; Bernard 1976a, 303-307; Bernard 1976b,
272-273; Downey 1988, 73-75; Bernard 1990a, 53-54; Litvinskiy and
Pichikyan 2000, 289-290.
141
Bernard 1990a, 54.
142
Bernard 1990a, 75; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 172.
139
129
Fig. 12: The ‘Extramural Temple’, Aï Khanum (after: Bernard 1976, fig. 11)
shrine.143 It obviously belonged to the Iranian tradition of
worship in high open-air sanctuaries known from earlier
periods.144 Two cultic platforms were also excavated in
Masjid-i Sulaymān145 and Bard-e Neshandeh146 in
Elymais, but their dating to the Hellenistic period remains
uncertain.147
dating of the most interesting complex at Shami which
has yielded significant finds of Parthian art is completely
unclear.151 The earliest stage of a temple on the mount of
Kuh-i Khwaja, for which even Achaemenid foundations
were claimed,152 was later dated to the late Parthian153 or
Sasanian periods.154
I should also mention a number of monuments once
considered Hellenistic temples, but recent research and
excavations of these sites have demonstrated that they
should rather be dated to the later periods, or that they
had no religious function, or both. The ruins of Kangavar
and Khurha, located in Western Iran, were frequently
cited as examples of Greek temple architecture in Iran.148
The first is now thought to be a late Sasanian palace149
and the latter a Parthian estate.150 The interpretation and
To conclude: Iranian temples of the Hellenistic period
(four in Eastern Iran and one in Western Iran) can be
divided into two types:
1. The ‘Iranian type’ (Fig. 14), to which the temples of
Persepolis, Takht-i Sangin and Dilberjin could be
attributed, probably developed in Western Iran and
originated in Achaemenian royal architecture. This
type is characterized by a rectangular tetrastyle cella
surrounded by corridors and flanked by wings entered
from the exterior. Not all these elements are always
present in each temple of this type; there are
variations. The layout of the ‘Iranian type’ was never
canonized, but its variants became widespread in the
Iranian world and beyond (for example in Syria and
Ghandhara) in the Parthian, Kushan and even in later
periods.
143
Bernard 1976a, 306-307; Bernard 1990a, 54. The most detailed
description of this monument is: Boyce and Grenet 1991, 181-182. For
the photograph of this platform see: Bernard 2009, fig. 19.
144
See: Boyce and Grenet 1991, 182-184; Shenkar 2007, 177. On
terraces in Iranian architecture see also: Kleiss 1998.
145
Ghirshman 1976, 55-149.
146
Schippmann 1971, 251-258; Ghrishman 1976, 5-55.
147
For the chronological discussion, see: Downey 1988, 131; Bernard
1991, 52 no. 7; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 44; Hannestad and Potts 1990,
115; Boucharlat, 2005, 238. The temples whose remains were excavated
on these platforms seem to date to the Parthian period: Boucharlat
1999a, 34.
148
For example: Ghirshman 1962, 24; Schippmann (1971), 307-308;
Frye 1984, 162.
149
Lukonin 1977; Azarnoush 1981, 82-94; Hannestad and Potts 1990,
111-112; Azarnoush 1999; Kleiss 2005; Azarnoush 2009.
150
Hakemi 1990; Rahbar 1999.
151
See: Schippmann 1971, 227-233; Sherwin-White 1984; Boyce and
Grenet 1991, 42-43.
152
Gullini 1964, 253-273.
153
Schippmann 1971, 57-70; Boyce and Grenet 1991, 150; Mousavi
1999, 81-85; Ghanimati 2000, 146.
154
Kawami 1987, 24. There are however still scholars who date it to the
Achaemenid period: Litvinskiy and Pichikyan 2000, 219-226 and the
Hellenistic period: Bivar 2003, 2-3.
130
Fig. 13. Iranian temples of the Hellenistic period. 1. “Frataraka Temple”, Persepolis; 2. “Oxus Temple”, Takht-i Sangin;
3. “Temple with Niches”, Ai Khanum; 4. “Extramural Temple”, Ai Khanum; 5. “Dioscuri Temple”, Dilberjin
architecture or cult in their kingdoms. It seems they
simply followed the religious policies of their
predecessors, the Achaemenians. As in the earlier
periods, there are more temples in Eastern than in
Western Iran, suggesting that throughout antiquity the
peoples of Western Iran (Medians, Persians etc.) probably
tended to practice their cults in high places under the
open sky. The reasons for this difference between the cult
practices of the peoples of Eastern and Western Iran still
remain to be discovered.
2. The ‘Mesopotamian type’ (Fig. 15) includes the two
temples of Ai Khanoum and is characterized by thick
mud-brick walls frequently decorated with niches, a
roofed or open pronaos and cella divided into three
chambers. The origin of this type is most probably in
Mesopotamia where it can be found also in the later
Parthian period (Temple of Artemis and Temple of
Zeus Megistos at Dura Europos). The layouts of
several Nabatean temples (Qasr Bint Firaun at Petra,
Dibon, Qasr Rabba) also demonstrate close similarity
to this ‘Mesopotamian type’ and it seems that they
were influenced by it.
The Greco-Macedonian conquest of Iran had an
interesting and controversial impact on temple
architecture. The influence of Greek architectural
tradition on Iranian temples was apparently limited to a
The layout of the temples shows that the Hellenistic
rulers did not attempt to introduce uniform ‘state’ temple
131
Fig. 14. The ‘Iranian type’. 1. The “Frataraka Temple”, Persepolis; 2. The “Oxus Temple”, Takht-i Sangin;
3. Mohra Maliaran, Taxila; 4. Khalchayan; 5. The “Dioscuri Temple”, Dilberjin; 6. Sur; 7. Sahr; 8. “Temple of
Ba‘al Shamin”, Si‘a; 9. Surkh Kotal; 10. Kuh-i Khwaja; 11. Susa; 12. Panjikent; 13. Dedoplis Mindori
number of decorative elements. It is significant that the
plans of all five temples discussed here were taken from
the repertoire of Oriental architectural types, and that they
all were built using local construction techniques which
were characterized by thick walls made of mud-brick.155
whose plan is entirely based on Mesopotamian and
Iranian architectural models. They (at least the rulers of
Ai Khanoum) were certainly acquainted with Greek
temple architecture, as a heroon of Kineas demonstrates,
but for some reason we do not know, they chose Oriental
models.156 One possible explanation is that the architects
who planned these temples were of non-Greek origin,
versed in the Mesopotamian building tradition and
One can only guess what caused the Hellenistic rulers (if
they actively participated in the projects and personally
chose the plans of the buildings), whose culture, language
and customs were predominantly Greek, to erect temples
155
156
It is worth noting that further to the East, a Jandial temple near
Taxila did include a number of elements borrowed from Greek temple
architecture: Rapin 1995, 287-291.
Pichikyan and Shelov-Kovedyaev 1989, 53.
132
Fig. 15. The ‘Mesopotamian type’. 1. The “Temple A”, Ashur; 2. The “Temple with Niches”, Aï Khanum;
3. The “Extramural Temple”, Aï Khanum; 4. The “Temple of Artemis”, Dura Europos; 5. The “Temple of
Zeus Megistos”, Dura Europos; 6. “Qasr Bint Firaun”, Petra; 7. Dibon; 8. Qasr Rabba
‘Greek’ objects, whose exact nature is still unclear, poses
interesting and important questions regarding the GrecoIranian syncretism and acculturation. In the present state
of research it is clear that the Bactrian material in
particular (as four out of five temples are from Bactria)
reflects the coexistence, and perhaps also a merging, of a
number of different cultural traditions – Greek, Iranian
and Mesopotamian – and that these temples met the needs
of the heterogeneous, multicultural population of
Hellenistic Bactria.157
incorporated some elements of Achaemenian royal
architecture. It is puzzling that the Mesopotamian
influences seem to have passed over Western Iran and
that they appear only in Bactria. Perhaps some cultural
and historical factors still unknown to us, and not only
the state of archaeological research in Western Iran, are
responsible for our lack of clarity.
Despite the fact that the architecture of the temples is
entirely Mesopotamian and Iranian, the majority of finds
in them could be labeled ‘Greek’ or ‘Hellenistic’. The
relationship between the ‘Oriental’ architecture and the
157
133
Lindström 2009, 131.
BERNARD, P. 1971. La campagne de fouilles de 1970 a
Ai Khanoum (Afghanistan). Comptes rendus des
séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belleslettres, 385-455.
BERNARD, P. 1974. Fouilles d’Ai Khanoum
(Afghanistan) campagnes de 1972 et 1973. Comptes
rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-lettres, 280-309.
Bibliography
ABDULLAEV, K. 1994. Recenziya na: History of
Zoroastrianism. Vol. III. Zoroastrianism under
Macedonian and Roman Rule, by Mary Boyce and
Frantz Grenet, with contribution by Roger Beck,
Leiden, 1991. In Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 3, 239245.
AMBOS, C. 2003. Nanaja – eine ikonographische Studie
zur Darstellung einer altorientalischen Göttin in
hellenistisch-parthischer Zeit. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 93/2, 231-272.
BERNARD, P. 1975. Campagne de fouilles 1974 à Ai
Khanoum (Afghanistan). Comptes rendus des séances
de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 167197.
BERNARD, P. 1976a. Campagne de fouilles 1975 à Ai
Khanoum (Afghanistan). Comptes rendus des séances
de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 287322.
BERNARD, P. 1976b. Les traditions orientales dans
l’architecture gréco-bactrienne. Journal Asiatique
267, 245-275.
ASKAROV, A. and ŠIRINOV, T. 1994. The Palace,
Temple and Necropolis of Jarkutan. Bulletin of the
Asia Institute 8, 13-26.
ASKAROV, A. and ŠIRINOV, T. 1991. Le temple du feu
de Džarkutan, le plus ancien centre cultuel de la
Bactriane septentrionale, in P. Bernard, F. Grenet
(eds), Histoire et cultes de l’Asie centrale préislamique, 129-137. Paris.
BERNARD, P. 1978. Campagne de fouilles 1976-1977 à
Ai Khanoum (Afghanistan). Comptes rendus des
AZARNOUSH, M. 1981. Excavations at Kangavar.
Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 14, 6995.
AZARNOUSH, M. 1999. Kangavar: un temple séleucide
d’Anahita devient un monument Sassanide. Dossiers
d’Archéologie 243, 52-54.
AZARNOUSH, M. 2009. New Evidence on the
Chronology of the ‘Anahita Temple’. Iranica Antiqua
44, 393-402.
BERNARD, P. 1989. Āy Kānom. Encyclopedia Iranica
III, 124-126.
BERNARD, P. 1990a. L’Architecture religieuse de l’Asie
centrale à l’époque hellénistique. In Akten des XIII
internationalen Kongresses fur klassische Archaologie, 51-59. Berlin.
AZARPAY, G. 1976. Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian
Goddess of Transoxania. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 96/4, 536-542.
BERNARD, P. 1990b. Vicissitudes au gré de l’histoire
d’une statue en bronze d’Héraclès entre Séleucie du
Tigre et la Mésène. Journal des Savants, 3-68.
AZARPAY, G. 1988. The Roman Twins in Near Eastern
Art. Iranica Antiqua 23, 349-360.
BERNARD, P. 1994a. Le temple du dieu Oxus à Takht-i
Sangin en Bactriane: temple du feu ou pas?. Studia
Iranica 23, 81-121.
BERNARD, P. 1966. Première campagne de fouilles
d’Ai Khanoum. Comptes rendus des séances de
l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 127133.
BERNARD, P. 1994b. The Greek States in Central Asia”.
In J. Harmatta (ed), History of Civilizations of Central
Asia, vol. II, 99-131. Paris.
BERNARD, P. 1996. Delbardjin. Encyclopedia Iranica
VII, 234-237.
BERNARD, P. 2008. The Greek Colony at Ai Khanoum
and Hellenism in Central Asia. In F. Hiebert and P.
Cambon (eds.), Afghanistan, Hidden Treasures from
National Museum, Kabul, 81-106. Washington.
BERNARD, P. 1967a. Deuxième campagne de foulles
d’Ai Khanoum en Bactriane. Comptes rendus des
BERNARD, P. 1967b. Ai Khanum on the Oxus: a
Hellenistic City in Central Asia. Proceedings of the
British Academy 53.
BERNARD, P. 2009. La découverte et la fouille du site
hellénistique d’Aï Khanoum en Afghanistan:
comment elles se sont faites. Parthica 11, 33-57.
BERNARD, P. 1968. Troisième campagne de fouilles
d’Ai Khanoum en Bactriane. Comptes rendus des
BERNARD, P. and Le BERRE, M. 1973. Architecture.
Le quartier administratif: l’ensemble nord. Fouilles
d’Ai Khanoum I, Mémoires de la Délégation
Archéologique Française en Afghanistan 21. Paris.
BERNARD, P. 1969. Quatrième campagne de fouilles
d’Ai Khanoum (Bactriane). Comptes rendus des
BERNARD, P., Le BERRE, M. and STUCKI, R. 1973.
Architecture. Le Téménos de Kinéas. Fouilles d’Ai
Khanoum I: Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan 21. Paris.
BERNARD, P. 1970. Campagne de fouilles 1969 à Ai
Khanoum en Afghanistan. Comptes rendus des
BIVAR, A.D.H. 2003. Cosmopolitan Deities and
Hellenistic Traces at Kuh-e Khwaja in Sistan. In C.
134
DOWNEY, S. 1988. Mesopotamian Religious
Architecture: Alexander through the Parthians.
Princeton.
Cereti (ed.), Religious Themes and Texts of PreIslamic Iran and Central Asia, 1-6. Wiesbaden.
BOARDMAN, J. 1994. The Diffusion of Classical Art in
Antiquity. Princeton.
DOWNEY, S.B. 2004. Zeus the Greatest in Syria.
Parthica 6, 117-129.
BOARDMAN, J. 2000. Persia and the West: An
Archaeological Investigation of the Genesis of
Achaemenid Persian Art. London.
DRUJININA A. 2001. Die Ausgrabungen in Taxt-i
Sangīn im Oxos-Tempelbereich (Süd-Tadžikistan).
Vorbericht der Kampagnen 1998-1999. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 33, 278-281.
BOROFFKA, N.G.O. 2009. Bandichan zwischen
Spätbronzezeit und Frühmittelalter, In S. Hansen, A.
Wieczorek, and M. Tellenbach (eds.), Alexander der
Große und die Öffnung der Welt Asiens Kulturen im
Wandel, 134-144. Mannheim.
DRUJININA, A. 2008. Gussform mit griechishcer
Inschrift aus dem Oxos-Tempel. Archäologische
Mitteilungen aus Iran 40, 121-137.
BOUCHARLAT, R. 1997. Susa under the Achaemenian
Rule. In J. Curtis (ed.), Mesopotamia and Iran in the
Persian Period: Conquest and Imperialism 539-331
BC, 54-68. London.
DRUZHININA, A. 2004. Predvaritel’nye rezul’taty
issledovaniya gorodishcha Takht-i Sangin i
opredelenie granits goroda ellinisticheskogo vremeni.
Arkheologicheskie raboty v Tadzhikistane 29, 224237.
BOUCHARLAT, R. 1999a. Villes, palais et temples.
Dossiers d’Archéologie 243, 30-35.
DRUZHININA, A. and INAGAKI, Kh. 2008. Obshchie
rezul’taty arkheologicheskikh issledovanij na gorodishche Takht-i Sangin v 2007 g. Arkheologicheskie
raboty v Tadzhikistane 33, 101-137.
BOUCHARLAT, R. 1999b. Temples du feu sassanides.
Dossiers d’Archéologie 243, 68-71.
BOUCHARLAT, R. 2005 “Iran”. In R. Boucharlat
and P. Briant (eds.), L’Archéologie de l’empire
achéménide:
nouvelles
recherches,
221-283.
Paris.
FITZSIMMONS, T. 1996. Chronological Problems at the
Temple of the Dioscuri, Dil’berdzin Tepe. East and
West 46, 3-4, 271-298.
BOYCE, M. 1993. Dar-e mehr. Encyclopedia Iranica VI,
669-670.
FRANCFORT H.P. 1984. Le sanctuaire du temple à
niches indentées. 2. Les trouvailles. Fouilles d`Ai
Khanoum 3, Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan 27. Paris.
BOYCE, M. and GRENET, F. 1991. A History of Zoroastrianism III: Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and
Roman Rule. Leiden.
FRYE, R.N. 1984. Religion in Fars under the
Achaemenians. Acta Iranica 23, 171-179.
BOYCE, M. 1989. Ātaškada. Encyclopedia Iranica III, 911.
FRYE, R.N. 1984. The History of Ancient Iran. Munich.
BURYY, V.P. 1976. Tekhnika zhivopisi. Drevnjaja
Baktrija: materialy Sovetsko-Afganskoj ekspedicii
1969 – 1973 gg, t. 1, 111-124.
FUSSMAN, G. 1983. Surkh Kotal. Tempel der KuschanZeit in Baktrien. Munich.
GAGOŠIDZE, J. 1983. Le temples de l’époque
préchrétienne en Géorgie. In IV Symposium
International sur l’Art Géorgien, 1-12. Tbilisi.
CALLIERI, P. 2007. L’archéologie du Fars à l’époque
achéménide: quatre leçons au Collège de France, 8,
15, 22 et 29 mars 2007. Persika 11. Paris.
GAGOSIDZE, J. 1992. The Temples at Dedoplis
Mindori. East and West 42, 27-48.
COLLEDGE, M. 1986. The Parthian Period. Leiden.
CALMEYER-SIEDL, U. 1999. Eine Triumphstele
Darius’ I. aus Babylon. In J. Renger (ed.), Babylon:
Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früher
Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne, 297-306.
Saarbrücken.
GHANIMATI, S. 2000. New Perspectives in the
Chronological and Functional Horizons of Kuh-i
Khwaja in Sistan. Iran 38, 137-150.
GHIRSHMAN, R. 1976. Terrasses sacrées de Bard-é
Néchandeh et Masjid-i Soleiman Mémoires de la
Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan
45. Paris.
DANDAMAEV, M.A. and LUKONIN. V.G. 2004. The
Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran.
Cambridge.
De
GHIRSHMAN, R. 1962. Iran. Parthians and Sassanians.
London.
JONG, A. 1997 Traditions of the Magi:
Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature.
Leiden.
GHIRSHMAN, R. 1964. Persia from the Origins to
Alexander the Great. London.
D’YAKONOVA, N.V. and SMIRNOVA, O.I. 1967. K
voprosu o kul’te Nany (Anakhity) v Sogdiane.
Sovetskaya Arheologiya 1, 139-175.
GHOSE, M. 2006. Nana, the ‘Original’ Goddess on the
Lion. Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 1,
97-112.
DOLGORUKOV, V.S. 1984. Oboronitel’nye sooruzheniya Dil’berdzhina In I.T. Kruglikova (ed.), Drevnjaja
Baktrija: materialy Sovetsko-Afganskoj ekspedicii
1969 – 1973 gg, t. 3, 58-92.
GNOLI, G. 1980. Zoroaster’s Time and Homeland.
Naples.
GNOLI, G. 2000. Zoroaster in History. New York.
135
GÖBL, R. 1984. System und chronologie
Münzprägung des Kušanreiches. Vienna.
HJERRILD, B. 1990. The Survival and Modification of
Zoroastrianism in Seleucid Times, in P. Bilde, T.
Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad and J. Zahle (eds.),
Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid
Kingdom, 141-150. Aarhus.
der
GOPNIK, H. 2010. Why Columned Halls? In J. Curtis
and J. Simpson (eds.), The World of Achaemenid
Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and in
Ancient Near East, 195-207. London.
HOPKINS, C. 1942. The Parthian Temple. Berytus 7/1,
1-18.
KAWAMI, T.S. 1987. Kuh-e Khwaja, Iran, and Its
Wall Paintings. Metropolitan Museum Journal 22, 1352.
KEALL, E. 1971. Archaeology and the Fire Temple. In
C.J., Adams (ed.), Iranian Civilization and Culture,
15-22. Montreal.
KELLENS, J. 2001. Zoroastre dans l’histoire ou dans le
mythe? À propos du dernier livre de Gherardo Gnoli.
Journal Asiatique 289/2, 171-184.
KLEISS, W. 1998. Terrassenanlagen in der iranischen
Architektur. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
30, 227-268.
KOCH, H. 1993. Feuertempel oder Verwaltungszentrale?
Überlegungen zu den Grabungen in Takht-e Sangin
am Oxos. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 26,
175-218.
KOROVCHINSKIY, I.N. 2001. Kul’ty Takht-i
Sanginskogo khrama (Severnaya Baktriya) v III-II vv.
do n.e. In Tezisy dokladov Mezhdunarodnoy
konferentsii studentov i aspirantov, ‘Lomonosov
2001’. Moscow.
KOROVCHINSKIY, I.N. 2002. Disk iz Ay Khanum i
kul’ty zhenskikh bozhestv pozdneantichnoy Tsentral’noy Azii. In Tezisy dokladov Mezhdunarodnoy
konferencii studentov i aspirantov, ‘Lomonosov
2002’. Moscow.
GÖRSDORF, V.G. and HUFF, D. 2001. C-Datierungen
von Materialien aus der Grabung Džarkutan,
Uzbekistan. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 33,
75-87.
GRENET, F. 1986. Palais ou palais-temple? Remarques
sur la publication du monument de Toprak-kala.
Studia Iranica 15, 123-135.
GRENET, F. 1987. L’Athéna de Dil’berdzin. In P.
Bernard and F. Grenet (eds.), Cultes et monuments
religieux dans l’Asie Centrale préislamique, 41-45.
Paris.
GRENET, F. 1991. Mithra au temple principal d’Ai
Khanoum? In, P. Bernard, and F. Grenet (eds.),
Histoire et cultes de l’Asie centrale préislamique,
147-151. Paris.
GRENET, F. 2004. The Cult of Oxus: A Reconsideration, Tsentral’naya Aziya ot Akhemenidov do
Timuridov, 377-379. St-Petersburg.
GRENET, F. 2007. Religious Diversity among Sogdian
Merchants in Sixth-Century China: Zoroastrianism,
Buddhism, Manichaeism, and Hinduism. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East
27/2, 403-418.
GRENET, F. (forthcoming a) Between Written Texts,
Oral Performance and Mural Paintings: Illustrated
Scrolls in Pre-Islamic Central Asia. In J. Rubanovich
(ed.), Orality and Textuality in the Iranian World:
Patterns of Interaction Across the Centuries.
Jerusalem.
KOROVCHINSKIY, I.N. 2007. Kul’ty ellinisticheskoy
Baktrii (na materialakh “khrama s ustupchatymi
nishami” v Ay Khanum i khrama Oksa v Takht-i
Sangine). Avtoreferat dissertatsii. Moscow.
GRENET, F. (forthcoming b). Zoroastrianism among the
Kushans. In M. Boyce, and A. de Jong, (eds.), A
History of Zoroastrianism, vol. IV: Parthian
Zoroastrianism. Leiden.
KOŠELENKO, G.S., LAPŠIN, A.G., and NOVIKOV,
S.V. 1989. Mansur-depe Excavations. Bulletin of the
Asia Institute 3, 45-52.
GRENET, F. and DRÈGE, J-P. 1987. Un temple de
l’Oxus près de Takht-i Sangin, d’après un témoignage chinois du VIIIe s. Studia Iranica 16/1, 117121.
GRENET, F. and MARSHAK, B. 1998. Le mythe de
Nana dans l’art de la Sogdiane” Arts Asiatiques 53, 518.
GULLINI, G. 1964. Architettura Iranica dagli
achemenidi ai Sasanidi. Turin.
KOŠELENKO, G.S., LAŠHIN, A.G. and NOVIKOV,
S.V. 2000. The Mansur-depe Excavations of 19861987. Parthica 2, 87-125.
KOSSOLAPOV, A.J and MARSHAK, B.I. 1999.
Stennaya zhivopis’ Sredney i Tsentral’noj Azii. StPetersburg.
KRUGLIKOVA, I.T. 1974. Dil’berdzhin: Raskopki
1970-1972. Moscow.
HAKEMI, A. 1990. The Excavation of Khurha East and
West 40, 11-41.
HANNESTAD, L. and POTTS, D. 1990. Temple
Architecture in the Seleucid Kingdom, in P. Bilde, T.
Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad and J. Zahle (eds.),
Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid
Kingdom, 91-124. Aarhus.
HERZFELD, E. 1976. Iran in the Ancient East.
Oxford.
KRUGLIKOVA, I.T. 1976. Nastennye rospisi
Dil’berdzhina.
Drevnjaja
Baktrija:
materialy
Sovetsko-Afganskoj ekspedicii 1969 – 1973 gg, vol. 1
87-111.
KRUGLIKOVA, I.T. 1977. Les fouilles de la Mission
archéologique soviéto-afghane sur le site grécokushan de Dilberdjin en Bactriane (Afghanistan).
Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 407-427. Paris.
136
Oksa v Severnoy Baktrii. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 4,
84-110.
KRUGLIKOVA, I.T. 1979. Nastennye rospisi v
pomeshchenii 16 severo-vostochnogo kul’tovogo
kompleksa Dil’berdzhina. Drevnjaja Baktrija:
materialy Sovetsko-Afganskoj ekspedicii 1969 – 1973
gg, vol. 2, 120-145.
KRUGLIKOVA, I.T.
dioskurov. Moscow.
1984.
Dil’berdzhin.
LIVSHITS, V.A. 2004. Nadpisi i dokumenty. In B.I.
Vainberg (ed.), Kalaly-Gyr II. Kul’tovyy tsentr v
drevnem Khorezme IV-II vv. do n.e., 188-213.
Moscow.
Khram
Lo MUZIO, C. 1999. The Dioscuri at Dilberdjin
(Northern Afghanistan): Reviewing Their Chronology
and Significance. Studia Iranica 28, 41-71.
LEMAIRE, A. 2003. Les pierres et inscriptions
araméennes d’Arebsun, nouvel examen. In S. Shaked
and A. Netzer (eds.), Irano-Judaica 5, 138-165.
LUKONIN, V.G. 1977. Khram Anaity v Kangavare.
Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 2, 105-111.
LERNER, J.D. 1999. Impact of Seleucid Decline on the
Eastern Iranian Plateau. Stuttgart.
MAIRS, R.R. (forthcoming). The ‘Temple with Indented
Niches’ at Ai Khanoum: Ethnic and Civic Identity in
Hellenistic Bactria. In R. Alston and O. van Nijf
(eds.), Cults, Creeds and Contests in the PostClassical City. Leuven.
LINDSTRÖM, G. 2009. Heiligtümer und Kulte im
hellenistischen Baktrien und Babylonien – ein
Vergleich” In S. Hansen, A. Wieczorek, and M.
Tellenbach (eds.), Alexander der Große und die
Öffnung der Welt Asiens Kulturen im Wandel, 127133. Mannheim.
MARSHAK, B.I. 2001. La thématique sogdienne dans
l’art de la Chine de la seconde moitié du VIe siècle.
Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 227-264. Paris.
LITVINSKY, B.A. 2000a. A Finial from the Temple of
Oxus in Bactria. Parthica 2, 131-143.
LITVINSKIY, B.A. 2000b. Gelios v khrame Oksa.
Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 1, 57-64.
MARTINEZ-SEVE, L. 2010. À propos du temple aux
niches indentées d’Aï Khanoum: quelques
observations, In P. Carlier and Ch. Lerouge-Cohen
(eds.), Paysage et religion en Grèce antique, 195-208.
Paris.
LITVINSKIY, B.A. 2001. Khram Oksa v Baktrii, tom 2,
Baktriyskoe vooruzhenie v drevnevostochnom i
grecheskom kontekste. Moscow.
MOUSAVI, M. 1999. Kuh-e Khadjeh: un complexe
religieux de l’est iranien. Dossiers d’Archéologie 243,
81-85.
LITVINSKIJ, B.A. 2003 Hellenistic Clay Portraits from
the Temple of the Oxus. Parthica 5, 37-63.
LITVINSKIJ, B.A. 2004. Ellenisticheskoe iskusstvo v
Khrame Oksa. In Transoksiana: istoriya i kul’tura,
67-71. Tashkent.
NAVEH, Y. and SHAKED, S. (forthcoming), Ancient
Aramaic Documents from Bactria (Fourth Century
B.C.E.). London.
LITVINSKY, B.A. and PICHIKYAN, I.R. 1981.
Découvertes dans un sanctuaire du die Oxus de la
Bactriane septentrionale. Revue archéologique 2, 195216.
NETZER, E. 2003. Nabatäische Architektur. Mainz am
Rhein.
PANAINO, A. 2002. The ‘bagān’ of the Fratarakas: Gods
or ‘divine’ Kings? In C. Cereti, M. Maggi and E.
Provasi (eds.), Religious Themes and Texts of PreIslamic Iran and Central Asia, 283-306. Wiesbaden.
LITVINSKII, B.A. and PICHIKIAN, I.R. 1994a. The
Hellenistic Architecture and Art of the Temple of the
Oxus. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 8, 47-66.
PICHIKYAN, I.R. 1991. Kul’tura Baktrii. Ahemenidskiy
i ellinisticheskiy periody. Moscow.
LITVINSKY, B.A. and PICHIKIYAN, I.R. 1994b. A
Rhyton from Takhti Sangin. Ancient Civilizations
from Scythia to Siberia 3, 355-364.
PICHIKYAN, I.R. and SHELOV-KOVEDYAEV, F.V.
1989. Grecheskie bozhestva v ellinisticheskoy
epigrafike i izobrazitel’nom iskusstve zapadnogo i
vostochnogo Irana. Istoriko-Filologicheskiy zhurnal
126, 48-58.
LITVINSKIJ, B.A. and PIČIKIAN, I.R. 1995a. River
Deities of Greece Salute the God of the River OxusVakhsh. In A. Invernizzi (ed.), In the Land of the
Gryphons, 129-150. Florence.
PILIPKO, V.N. 1996. Staraya Nisa. Zdanie s kvadratnym
zalom. Moscow.
LITVINSKY, B.A. and PICHIKYAN, I.R. 1995b. Gold
Plaques from the Oxus Temple (Northern Bactria).
Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 2, 196221.
P’YANKOV, I.V. 1996. Zoroastr v istorii Sredney Azii:
problema mesta i vremeni. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 3,
3-23.
LITVINSKIY, B.A. and PICHIKYAN, I.R. 2000.
Ellinisticheskiy khram Oksa v Baktrii vol. I.
Moscow.
P’YANKOV, I.V. 1997. Srednyaya Aziya v antichnoy
geograficheskoy traditsii. Istochnikovedecheskiy
analiz. Moscow.
LITVINSKIJ, B.A. and PIČIKJAN, I. R. 2002. Taxt-i
Sangīn.
Der
Oxus-Tempel.
Grabungsbefund,
Stratigraphie und Architektur. Mainz.
POTTS, D.T. 2001. Nana in Bactria. Silk Road Art and
Archaeology 7, 23-37.
LITVINSKIY, B.A., VINOGRADOV, Yu.G. and
PICHIKYAN, I.R. 1985. Votiv Atrosoka iz khrama
POTTS D.T. 2007. Foundation Houses, Fire Altars and
the Frataraka: Interpreting the Iconography of Some
137
SCHLUMBERGER, D. 1975. Sur la nature des temples
de Surkh Kotal. Central’naja Aziya v Kushanskuyu
epokhu 2. Moscow.
Post-Achaemenian Persian Coins. Iranica Antiqua 42,
271-301.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. 1966. Khalchayan. Tashkent.
SCHLUMBERGER, D., Le BERRE, M. and FUSSMAN,
G. 1983. Surkh Kotal en Bactriane. Vol. I. Les
temples:
architecture,
sculpture,
inscriptions.
Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française
en Afghanistan 25. Paris.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. 1971. Skul’ptura Khalchayana. Moscow.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. 1973. K arkhitekturnoy
tipologii v zodchestve Baktrii i Parfii. Vestnik Drevnej
Istorii 1, 121-131.
SCHMIDT, E.F. 1953. Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs,
Inscriptions. Chicago.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. 1974. O kul’takh Baktrii v
svete arkheologii. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 3, 124-135.
SHAHBAZI, A.S. 2002. Recent Speculations on the
‘Traditional Date of Zoroaster’. Studia Iranica 31/1,
7-45.
PUGACHENKOVA, G.A. 1982. K tipologii monumental’nogo zodchestva drevnikh stran sredneaziatskogo
regiona. Iranica Antiqua 17, 21-42.
SHAKED, S. 2005. Zoroastrian Origins: Indian and
Iranian Connections. In J.P. Arnason, S.N. Eisenstadt
and B. Wittrock (eds.), Axial Civilizations and World
History, 183-201. Leiden.
RAHBAR, M. 1999. Khorheh, une résidence parthe
sur le plateau iranien. Dossiers d’Archéologie 243,
44-47.
RAPIN, C. 1994. Svyatilishcha Sredney Azii v epokhu
ellinizma. Vestnik Drevnej Istorii 4, 128-140.
SHENKAR, M. 2007. Temple Architecture in the Iranian
World before the Macedonian Conquest. Iran and the
Caucasus 11/2, 169-194.
RAPIN, C. 1995. Indo-Greeks and Vishnuism: on an
Indian Object from the Sanctuary of the Oxus and
Two Temples in Taxila in A. Invernizzi (ed.), In the
Land of the Gryphons, 275-291. Florence.
ŠKODA, V.G. 1987. Le culte du feu dans les sanctuairies
de Pendžikent. In P. Bernard and F. Grenet (eds.),
Cultes et monuments religieux dans l’Asie Centrale
préislamique, 63-72. Paris.
RAPIN, C. 2004. L’Afghanistan et l’Asie centrale dans la
géographie mythique des historiens d’Alexandre et
dans la toponymie des géographes gréco-romains.
Notes sur la route d’Herat à Begram, In O.
Bopearachchi and M.-Fr. Boussac (eds.), Afghanistan.
Ancien carrefour entre l’Est et l’Ouest, 143-172.
Bruxelles.
SHKODA, V.G. 1996. The Sogdian Temple: Structure
and Rituals. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 10, 195206.
SHKODA V.G. 1998. Iranian Traditions in Sogdian
Temple Architecture. In V.S., Curtis, R. Hillenbrand
and J.M. Rogers (eds.), The Art and Archaeology of
Ancient Persia. New Light on the Parthian and
Sasanian Empires, 122-132. London.
RAPIN, C. 2007. Nomads and the Shaping of Central
Asia, In J. Cribb and G. Herrmann (eds.), After
Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. Proceedings of
the British Academy 133, 29-72. Oxford.
SHKODA, V.G. 2009. Pyandzhikenstkie khramy i
problemy religii Sogda (V-VIII vv). St. Petersburg.
RAPIN, C., ISAMIDDINOV, M. and KHASANOV, M.
2010. Koktepe, ville jumelle de Maracanda. Dossiers
d’Archéologie 341, 20-24.
SIEDL, U. 1999. Ein Monument Darius I. aus Babylon.
Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische
Archäologie 89, 101-114.
RAPOPORT, Yu.A. 1994. The Palaces of Topraq-Qal‘a.
Bulletin of the Asia Institute 8, 161-186.
SIMS-WILLIAMS, N. 2001. Bactrian Legal Documents
from 7th- and 8th-Century Guzgan. Bulletin of the Asia
Institute 15, 9-31.
RIBOUD, P. 2003. Le cheval sans cavalier dans l’art
funéraire sogdien en Chine: À la recherche des
sources d’un thème composite. Ars Asiatique 58, 148161.
SIMS-WILLIAMS, N. 2003. A Bactrian Quarrel. Bulletin
of the Asia Institute 17, 9-17.
ROSENFIELD, J.M. 1967. The Dynastic Art of the
Kushans. Los Angeles.
STAUSBERG, M. 2002. Die Religion Zarathushtras,
Geschichte – Gegenwart – Rituale, vol I. Stuttgart.
SARIANIDI V.I. 1996. Proiskhozhdenie iranskikh
khramov ognya. Convegno internazionale sul tema:
La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X
secolo, in collaborazione con l’Istituto Italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente (Roma, 9-12 novembre
1994), 319-329. Rome.
STRONACH, D. 1978. Pasargadae: A Report of the
Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of
Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963. Oxford.
SCHIPPMANN,
K.
1971.
Die
Feuerheiligtümer. Berlin – New York.
iranischen
TANABE, K. 1995. Nana on Lion. East and West in
Sogdian Art. Orient 30/31, 365-381.
SCHLUMBERGER, D. 1961. The Excavations at Surkh
Kotal and the Problem of Hellenism in Bactria and
India. Proceedings of the British Academy 47.
London.
THOLBECQ, L. 1997. Les sanctuairies des Nabatéens.
État de la question à la lumière de recherches
archéologiques récentes. Topoi Orient-Occident 7/2,
1069-1095.
STRONACH, D. 1985. On the Evolution of the Early
Iranian Fire Temple. Papers in Honor of Prof. Mary
Boyce. Acta Iranica 25, 605-627.
138
WIESEHÖFER, J. 1994. Die “dunklen Jahrhunderte”
der Persis. Munich.
UZYANOV, S.A. 1987. O serebryanoy statuetke,
naydennoy na Takhti-Sangine. In B.B. Piotrovskij,
and G.M. Bongard-Levin (eds.), Tsentral’naya Aziya,
novye pamyatniki pis’mennosti i iskusstva, 290-297.
Moscow.
WIESEHÖFER, J. 2001. Frataraka. Encyclopedia Iranica
X, 195.
WIESEHÖFER, J. 2007 Fars under Seleucid and Parthian
Rule. In V.S. Curtis, and S. Stewart (eds.), The Age of
Parthians, The Idea of Iran, vol. II, 37-50. London.
VEUVE, S. 1987. Le gymnase. Architecture, céramique,
sculpture. Fouilles d’Ai Khanoum 6. Mémoires de la
Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan
30. Paris.
ZEYMAL’, E.V. 1985. Drevnosti Tadzhikistana. Katalog
vystavki. Dushanbe.
WALDMANN, H. 1991. Der kommagenische Mazdaismus. Tübingen.
ZOURNATZI, A. 1993. Cyrus. vi. The Tomb of Cyrus.
Encyclopedia Iranica VI, 522-524.
139

downloaded - Scholars at HUJI

Transcription

Similar documents

Temple of the Goddess 2008 Sabbat Celebrations

http://www.crystalinks.com/gargoyles.html

Middle Temple Scholarship Fund

Art 100 The Basics of Visual Literacy 1. Description

Yanaka

history - Frankedu

with Mariska Hargitay

halloween party invitation halloween party invitation

collection 1295-98

Dress Code for Visitors - Sri Venkateswara Temple