Deconstructing the ‘Greekness’ of Bactrian pottery. On the Greek‑Mediterranean influences on the local pottery production in Bactria during the Hellenistic period
Abstract
42
Full text
Deconstructing the ‘Greekness’ of Bactrian pottery. On the Greek ‑Mediterranean influences on the local pottery production in Bactria during the Hellenistic period Kristina Junker ABSTRACT It is often assumed that the Hellenistic pottery production in Bactria was highly influenced by Mediterranean ceramic shapes, aprocess, which was mainly caused by the settling of Greek immigrants. Nevertheless, the implementation of new pottery shapes is the result of alocal transformation process, that had already begun before the Macedonian conquest. The first evidence of Greek -Mediterranean shapes and decoration techniques, which were produced in Bactrian pottery workshops, are dated to the Greco -Bactrian phase, most likely to the 2nd century BC.Since their number is limited in relation to the whole pottery collections, the assumed Greek influence should not have been too significant. Throughout the early Hellenistic phase (late 4th and 3rd century BC) new pottery shapes and techniques were introduced in Bactria, like the so -called fish -plate, which are thought to mark the Greek -Mediterranean influence on the local pottery production. Because of their morphological differences to Mediterranean types, these shapes cannot be identified as aGreek -Mediterranean vessel. Only with the emergence of the Greco -Bactrian dynasty does aGreek influenced pottery production appear to become observable at afew sites, mainly in Ai Khanoum (2nd century BC). One of these shapes is the mould -made relief bowl, also known as aMegarian bowl. It was produced first in Athens at the end of the 3rd century BC and appears in Bactria probably not earlier than the 2nd century BC.But the most frequent vessels stand in the local tradition, like the so -called Bactrian cup -bowl and attest the actual character of the Bactrian pottery. Consequently, the assumed strong Greek influence on the Bactrian pottery is in my opinion overstated in scholarly discourse. KEYWORDS Pottery; ceramics; Bactria; Greek influence; fish -plate; Megarian bowl; mould -made relief bowl; Bactrian cup -bowl; grey ware. RESEARCH ON THE GREEK ‑MEDITERRANEAN INFLUENCED POTTERY FROM BACTRIA The year 329 BC marked apolitical turn in Bactria, which had triggered various subsequent events. Alexander the Great moved into Bactria and during the next three years conquered large parts of Central Asia, before he set out to the Hindu Kush. Before leaving Bactria, he set up bases with ‘Greek’ settlers, who would henceforth control the area vicariously (Arrian Anab. IV, 22; Diodorus XVIII, 7; Rapin– Grenet 1983, 315–72; Grenet 1983, 373–381; Bernard 1996, 104–116; Mairs 2008, 19–20). This migration event is understood to be the trigger of atransformational process, which became tangible in the material culture (Mairs 2008, 23–26). Amongst other things it can be attested by architectural elements, sculptures or inscriptions, which show an explicit Greek origin. But can this change also be observed in the pottery of the Hellenistic period? J.-C. Gardin states that ‘le fait le plus étonnant est le caractère éminemment STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/2, 42–63
43KRISTINA JUNKER grec de la céramique fabriquée dans la région pendant toute cette période’ (Gardin 1990, 187). 1 According to him, Bactrian ceramics show astrong Greek influence, which would have been caused by the presence of Greek settlers in Bactria. Over the last few decades this hypothesis has grown to become afact that has never been discussed to ascertain its correctness and will therefore be proven in this paper. The first, thorough research of the Hellenistic pottery of Bactria was carried out on the basis of the ceramic finds in Ai Khanoum by P.Bernard in 1965. In addition to technical features, such as the ‘régularité du tournage, la finesse des moulures de pied ou de lévre’ (Schlumberger –Bernard 1965, 604), he already postulated the Greek character of the Hellenistic ceramic shapes.2 At the same time, however, he noted that the Bactrian pottery was produced on site and differs from the previous ceramic production by arange of new shapes. This change was due to the Greeks who settled in Bactria from the Alexander the Great times (Schlumberger– Bernard 1965, 604). In his opinion, there is no ceramic shape that has no equivalent in the Hellenistic pottery repertoire of the Middle East or Egypt. He then clarified this connection to the non -Greek regions of the Hellenistic world, using selected vessel shapes of the Middle East and concluded that there is no difference between the pottery of Bactria and the other centres of the Middle East (Schlumberger– Bernard 1965, 605–606). Further studies of the Bactrian pottery were conducted by J.-C. Gardin and B. Lyonnet during the following decades, but these were mostly limited to Ai Khanoum (southeastern Bactria) (Lyonnet 1997; 2013a; Gentelle 1989; 1990; 1998), with the exception of Lyonnet’scomparison of the pottery of Marakanda and Koktepe (Lyonnet 2012; 2013b). In northwestern Bactria, the research interest in Bactrian pottery of the Hellenistic era has developed in recent years. The assumed Greek influence would also be clearly recognizable on the basis of the archaeological material, leading to the definition of the ‘Ai Khanoum Ceramic Complex’. This term was established to clarify the similarity of the northern pottery finds to the material from Ai Khanoum (Sedov 1984, 171–180). Up to the present time, this hypothesis is widely recognized in the research discussion. Sverchkov reports that ‘materials from the excavations of all levels in the [Kurganzol] fortress, however, reflect not simply aMediterranean influence but rather adirect imitation of Greek prototypes’ (Sverchkov 2008, 164). Contrary to the generally accepted research opinion, Pidaev determined typological differences in the composition of Termez and Ai Khanoum ceramics and defined the term ‘Termez Type Pottery’ to contradict Sedov’sthesis (Pidaev 1991, 220–221). Another problematic thesis is based on the assumption that Greeks who lived in Bactria, pursued their eating and drinking traditions and thus had an influence on the local ceramic production (Lyonnet 1997, 133–134, 169–173; Gardin 1985, 447–460; Gardin 1990, 190–193; Mairs 2013, 85–88; Mairs 2014b, 175–182; Houal 2016, 468). Most clearly one can read this research hypothesis in Tikhonov’sarticle: ‘Thus, the pottery of Bactria of the Hellenistic era, despite all its tradition, was sufficiently influenced by the Greeks. This was reflected not only in the set and appearance of the dishes (completely new types and morphological details, stamp ornament), but also in the process of pottery production.’ And he concludes: ‘Their presence in the ceramic complex, apparently indicates that the Greeks settled in the depths of Asia maintained close ties with Hellas’ (Tikhonov 2012b, 135).3 1 ‘The most astonishing fact is the eminently Greek character of the ceramics made in the region during this whole period.’ 2 ‘The regularity of the turning, the fineness of the mouldings of the vessels’ foot or lip.’ 3 ‘Таким образом, гончарное дело Бактрии эллинистической эпохи, несмотря на всю свою традиционность, подверглось достаточному влиянию со стороны греков. Это отразилось
44 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/2 In summary, since the 1960s, it has been commonly accepted by researchers that Greek settlers influenced and partly changed the Bactrian ceramic production. In this paper this paradigm is questioned and examined with regard to two arguments. First of all, two types of vessels, the so -called fish -plate and the so -called Megarian cup, are discussed, which are generally regarded as Greek influenced vessel shapes (Gardin 1990, 189–190; Lyonnet 2013, 353–354, 360; Tikhonov 2011a, 322–324; Tikhonov 2013, 321–329). Both vessel types are of particular importance to the discussion in terms of their typological characteristics, their distribution and most of all because of their dating (Lerner 2003/2004, 378–380; Lerner 2010, 59–61, 66–68, 71–75; Lyonnet 2012, 155–157, 161). Obviously, it would be fruitful to discuss more vessel types, but already these two shapes will serve as agood example as both have continuously been utilized in literature to demonstrate the Greek -Mediterranean character of the Bactrian pottery production during both Hellenistic phases: the early Hellenistic phase with the fish -plate (end 4th–3rd century BC) and the late Hellenistic phase with the mould -made relief bowl (2nd century BC). In its basic approach, this study demonstrates the differences between the Mediterranean and the Bactrian vessels, leading to apreclusion of some so -called Greek vessels. In contrast, new vessel shapes and decoration techniques should be more likely understood as the result of alocal transformational process, which seems to have begun in Bactria even before Hellenism (Abdullaev 1976, 124; Litvinskij 2000, 218; Tikhonov 2011a, 211; Tikhonov 2012a, 314). The vessel shapes that have unambiguous models in the West are relatively low in number and accumulate mainly in Ai Khanoum (Tikhonov 2011a, 210; Tikhonov 2013; Junker forthcoming). Significantly, shapes of alocal tradition/innovation have been documented at all Hellenistic sites in Bactria, and they dominate the ceramic assemblage. These include the so -called Bactrian cup -bowl, which can be interpreted as amultifunctional vessel that is strongly connected to pre -Hellenistic drinking and eating traditions. Unlike in the Mediterranean, where kantharoi and skyphoi were produced until the 3rd century BC, these Greek drinking vessels have not been discovered in Bactria and therefore did not replace the Bactrian cup -bowl (Junker forthcoming). This observation makes it clear that despite new impetus in the form of new vessel shapes, food and drink habits in Bactria had not been radically changed (but rather gradually). In the following, this research result will be amplified on the basis of the above -mentioned vessel shapes. THE FISH ‑PLATE The fish -plate is one of many vessel shapes of the ancient Greek ceramic repertoire and is considered to be akey form of the Hellenistic era, as it was identified at several sites between the Mediterranean and Bactria. Moreover, it is used as an archaeological marker to identify Greek settlers, who were living all across the Hellenistic world, and their influence on local pottery traditions (Fig. 1). не только на наборе иоблике посуды (совершенно новые типы иморфологические детали, штамповый орнамент), но ина процессе организации гончарного ремесла (горны сопорным столбом втопочной камере). […] Их наличие вкерамическом комплексе, видимо, свидетельствует отом, что греки, поселенные вглубинах Азии поддерживали тесные связи сЭлладой.’
45KRISTINA JUNKER The plate got its name from the motifs, which were painted in Red -figure style and usually represent fishes and other esculent marine animals (Rotroff 1997, 146–149. In general: McPhee– Trendall 1987; Kunisch 1989). Its shape can be characterized as aflat plate with abroad hanging rim and aring base. Due to its design, this shape was complicated to manufacture and required acertain amount of technical skills on the potter’sbehalf. Asecond feature is the central shallow depression on the inside of the plate, in which oil or sauces were held. The fish -plate was invented at the end of the 5th century in Attica and was later mainly produced in southern Italy and Sicily (Rotroff 1997, 146). During the Hellenistic period, the fish -plate was produced in great numbers in Athens, but its typical fish motifs were replaced by ablack gloss. In the course of the following 200 years, the Attic plate even becomes abowl with ashort hanging rim and smaller diameter of the inner depression, which seems to have lost its original purpose at that time (Rotroff 1997, 147). In addition, no standardized size (diameter) can be appraised at any time. Therefore, the fish -plate is not auseful shape for dating any archaeological context (Rotroff 1997, 148). In other regions of the Hellenistic world the development of the fish -plate is very individual and cannot be summarized in this paper. The vessel’sshape, however, is interpreted as akey form of the Hellenistic culture throughout the Hellenistic territories and is therefore also mentioned in many publications of archaeological sites, even if morphological differences Fig. 1: The different types of so -called fish plates, which differ to some degree significantly from each other. After: Kurganzol– Sverchkov 2009; Hacenebi– Steinetal. 1996; Seleucia on the Tigris– Valtz 2000; Larsa and Pasargadae– Hannestad 1990; Ai Khanoum– Lyonnet 2013a; Map by K. Junker.
46 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/2 are obviously recognizable (for example: Hannestad 1990, 179; Valtz 1991, 56; Rotroff 1997, 146; Sousa 2019, 302). In Bactria, the fish -plate vessel shape is associated with the campaigns of Alexander and the subsequent settlement of Greeks (Tikhonov 2010, 96; Tikhonov 2013, 323). 4 Although this shape is identified at many, if not all, archaeological sites of the Hellenistic era, the shape of the vessel is usually not defined or described and, for this reason, very different diagnostic fragments are referred to as fish -plates (Junker forthcoming): The Attic fish -plate shows abroad hanging rim during the early and middle Hellenistic periods. Such arim type is previously known only in Ai Khanoum with only afew documented fragments (Lyonnet 2013a, fig. 101, 107; Lyonnet 2013b, 535). As arule, however, another rim shape is attributed to the fish -plate, which shows ashortened downturned rim (Fig. 2) (Lyonnet 2013a, fig. 101, 107; Sverchkov 2008, 146, fig. 13:12–13, 14:16–20, 18:18–19, 19:5, 18, 20:4–6; Tikhonov 2013, 133). The unique feature, however, is the central depression on the inner surface of the vessel, as known from Mediterranean fish -plates. In contrast, Bactrian fish -plates rarely have such afeature, and if they do, two variants are differentiable: either it can be deepened into athickened bottom part or it is only indicated by aslight depression/score line (Lyonnet 2013a, fig. 101–104; Sverchkov 2008, 146, fig. 19:7; Maxwell -Jones 2015, 99). However, such adiagnostic feature is relatively rarely observable in Bactria and often associated with several rim variants, and sometimes vessel types. Fish -plates from Ai Khanoum and Kurganzol, for example, show different diagnostic depressions and rim shapes (Lyonnet 2013a, fig. 101, 107; Sverchkov 2008, 146, fig. 19:7; Dvurechenskaya 2015, 204). Moreover, the bottom parts are designed differently too: ring feet, flat and broad bases can show adepression, but they are again rarely found in Bactria (Lyonnet 2013a, fig. 101–104; Sverchkov 2008, 146, fig. 19:7).5 Anotable difference can also be determined by the proportion or height of the vessel. In Attica, flat fish -plate shapes can be found until the end of the 3rd century BC, after that time the shape is changed to amore bowl like fish -plate (Rotroff 1997, 148–149). In Bactria, however, the vessels known as fish -plates are not always characterized as plates and often show abowl -like shape already during the Hellenistic period, which stand in clear contrast to the Mediterranean models. These morphological differences clearly prevent the identification of aGreek -Mediterranean influence. Consequently, one of the most frequently cited Greek -Mediterranean or Greek inspired Bactrian shapes cannot surely be designated as such. Asimilar phenomenon can also be observed in the Mesopotamian pottery production. In Dura Europos, besides two imported fish plate fragments, numerous locally produced fish plates were documented (in the red slip ware) (Cox 1949, 24; Hannestad 1990, 181).6 In south4 ‘Les périodes I–III étaient caractérisées par une céramique essentiellement de couleur claire poursuivant la tradition locale précédente, mais parfois à engobe rouge; d'emblée y étaient attestées des formes typiquement grecques comme les assiettes à poisson, les bols à lèvre rentrante [linked to the echinus bowl] ou les cratères.’ (Lyonnet 2013, 353). ‘Another shape that is typically considered amarker of Greekness, although not as elite as mould -made bowls, is the fishplate.’ (Maxwell- -Jones 2015, 492). 5 The central depression is not always attested as adiagnostic feature or is not mentioned at all, probably due to the relatively low number of fragments with adepression in Bactria. 6 Interestingly, some shapes, as well as the fish plate, were not only produced in the local red slip ware of Dura Europos, but also in the so -called grey ware, which is also linked to shapes of Greek inspiration. This observation could allow the interpretation of workshops that were specialized in Greek inspired pottery shapes.
47KRISTINA JUNKER Fig. 2: The two Bactrian rim types that are generally associated with the Mediterranean fish plate. Torbulok. Drawing by K. Junker. 0 5cm ern Mesopotamia fish plates are covered with agreen glaze, acharacteristic of the regional pottery production (Hannestad 1983, 13–16; Hannestad 1990, 183). Their morphological features include ashort hanging rim and adepression, following no uniform design. But unlike in Bactria, the Mesopotamian fish plates usually have aring bottom.
48 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/2 In general, the Greek vessel shapes were produced according to local traditions and enriched the already known range of shapes in Mesopotamia. However, two aspects need to be taken into consideration: on the one hand these vessels are not found in the same quantity in all regions and on the other hand their shapes were ‘simplified’ to varying degrees (Hannestad 1990, 186). Because of these factors it is highly important to clearly define each shape which one wants to name Greek or Greek inspired. Only with such an explicit definition, can the real influence sphere be cleared up. But up to now, there is no single distinct definition of afish -plate, neither in Mesopotamia nor in Bactria. Therefore, one should be careful when using terminology which indicates acertain cultural affiliation. To sum up, during the early Hellenistic period the local ceramic repertoire of numerous sites in the Hellenistic East was enriched by the new shapes like various rim shapes of bowls and plates, ring foots and broad bases, containers with handles and transport flasks, as well as the red coated vessels (Lyonnet 2013b, 353; Tikhonov 2012b, 138). On the basis of the morphological peculiarities, however, it has been demonstrated that the assumed Mediterranean vessel shape of the fish plate was determined on the basis of different characteristics, following no uniform definition: ashort hanging or downturned rim shape, and/or an inner depression. Therefore, these vessels do not equate to the Mediterranean fish -plate (Tikhonov 2010, 98; Junker forthcoming). The depression on the vessel’sinner surface can finally be interpreted as avariant, connected to more than one rim type. It is therefore not recommended to use the term fish -plate, but instead define the various rim types individually. Interestingly enough, no commentary has yet been made concerning the missing type shapes of the Hellenistic Mediterranean pottery repertoire: Greek drinking vessels, such as kantharoi or skyphoi. These shapes were produced in Attica only until the second third of the 3rd century BC (Rotroff 1997, 84–119). With afew exceptions, they have not been found in the Hellenistic east (Hannestad 1990, 181). In Bactria these shapes are completely missing (Junker forthcoming). Apparently, the Bactrian population had their own local vessel shape, better adapted to their own (eating and) drinking customs: One of these local shapes is referred to as the Bactrian cup -bowl (Gardin 1990, 190; Junker forthcoming). THE BACTRIAN CUP ‑BOWL The Bactrian cup -bowl is adeep open vessel with aflat base, abulbous body and an incurved lip. This cup -bowl was already made during the Bronze Age, and from the Iron Age on its outside surface shows abright ‘pseudo slip’, which can also be observed on other vessel shapes (Gardin 1990, 190; Bolelov 2001, 18; Tikhonov 2011b, 53–54; Junker forthcoming).7 In the course of the Hellenistic era, such cup -bowls continued to be made with some variations (Fig.3): in addition to flat bottom parts, the cups can also stand on aring foot. The body can show astepped wall at the maximum diameter of the vessel and ared or occasionally adark slip. After the Hellenistic era, and especially during the Kushan period, the once -wide cup shapes were modified, providing aprobable typological link to the high cups with pedestal foots of the Kushan period (Gardin 1990, 318–319). 7 The term ‘pseudo slip’ stands for afire technique with the result of apartly whitish surface colour. During the firing process in the pottery kiln and due to the stacking of the vessels, the upper vessel part, which is not covered by the lower vessel, turns white. Therefore, this technique cannot be referred to as areal slip.
49KRISTINA JUNKER The Bactrian cup -bowl has been discovered in various shapes, at many archaeological sites and even beyond the borders of Bactria (Tikhonov 2010, 93–96; Junker forthcoming). Although it is not a complex vessel shape, its special manufacturing technique, high number, and traditional design might indicate that the Bactrian wheel made pottery production was generally dominated by this local vessel shape throughout the Hellenistic period. But besides the Bactrian cup -bowls with its ‘pseudo slip’, also various types of storage vessels and cooking pots (Fig. 4, Pl. 2/1) continued to be produced and used, amplifying the hypothesis that the local people adhered to existing indigenous traditions (Tikhonov 2011c, 98). Asimilar development can also be observed in southern Mesopotamia. There, the local tradition of green glazed pottery and Egg -Shell -Ware continued to exist during the Hellenistic period. Unlike the green glaze that covered some Greek vessel shapes, the Egg -Shell -Ware was exclusively used for the production of traditional, local tableware shapes (Hannestad 1990, 183; Hannestad 1983, 23–38). It is worth noting, however, that along with local cooking pot shapes lopades were also produced in local workshops. This fact could indicate that the population living in the Hellenistic centres of southern Mesopotamia was to some degree composed of Greeks, who maintained their cooking traditions. In contrast, no Greek cooking pots are up to now known in Bactria. But why? One can assume, that the populations of Bactria and of 0 5 cm Fig. 3: The Bactrian cup -bowl and its various types and variants. Fragments found in Torbulok. Drawing by K. Junker.
50 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/2 0 cm 10 cm Fig. 4: Cooking pot type found in Torbulok, linked to Iron Age traditions. Drawing by K. Junker.
57KRISTINA JUNKER and was probably connected to amuch more complex cultural process (Abdullaev 1976, 124; Litvinskij 2000, 218; Gaibov 2004, 606; Tikhonov 2011a, 211; Tikhonov 2012a, 314). Even if new impulses seem to have been set in motion within this process, it still cannot be clearly equated with Greek inspired shapes. The Attic fish -plate, for example, finds no direct parallels in the Bactrian repertoires, but is one of the most mentioned shapes regarding the identification of aGreek influence (Maxwell -Jones 2015, 492). As arule, these supposedly Greek inspired shapes of the early Hellenistic phase do not follow strict Greek models, but should be understood as the result of alocal adaptation of afew foreign vessel shapes. Some of the Hellenistic key shapes were therefore not included in the Bactrian repertoire, as they were not needed. In Mesopotamia more vessel types of the Mediterranean repertoire are known during the early Hellenistic phase, but even there some key Mediterranean shapes are ‘missing’ too. So far, only in rare cases, Attic drinking vessels, unguentaria, and kitchen vessels have been discovered. The latter, in particular, serve as astrong ethnic marker, which could be used to differentiate between local and foreign cooking traditions within the archaeological contexts (Bunimovitz– Yasur -Landau 1996, 89–93). It is striking that these shapes are up to now completely missing in the Bactrian material. With that in mind, the early Hellenistic pottery is clearly different from other regional production centres in the East, which seem to have been more extensively engaged in trade activities with the centres in the Hellenistic Mediterranean. Not until the end of the 3rd century BC– or even later– were the first shapes produced in Bactria that are comparable with vessels of the Hellenistic Mediterranean. These include, in particular, the mould -made relief bowls, which were produced in Asia Minor, the Levant, and probably also in southern Mesopotamia from at least the first half of the 2nd century BC.Thus, this vessel cannot be assigned to any identity. At that time Greek -Mediterranean vessel types are to be rather interpreted as an expression of aphilhellene life style, which was lived only by certain groups of the population. This interpretation could clarify the relatively low find incidence of these shapes throughout the Bactrian territories. But how did the Bactrian potters gain their inspiration to produce ‘identical’ copies of Mediterranean shapes, like the mould -made bowls? Precious metal vessels probably served as amodel.14 Therefore, only afew Mediterranean shapes were adapted in Bactria. On the basis of the published results, the dating of the introduction of Greek inspired pottery shapes is challenging. Nevertheless, the appearance of Greek inspired shapes dates more likely to the Greco -Bactrian period or even more precisely to the 2nd century BC (Lerner 2010, 70–71). This development was probably triggered by the political and economic events following the peace treaty between Euthydemus Iand AntiochusIII. In subsequent decades, the expansion of Ai Khanoum took place, which led to its unique character of an urban site with Western and Eastern features (Mairs 2014a, 1–4; Martinez -Sève 2014, 267). On the basis of the ceramic studies, the production start of Greek -Mediterranean vessel types in Bactria cannot be argued (Junker forthcoming). One must note that the settlement policy of Alexander the Great is not comparable with the founding of colonies in the Black Sea area in the first half of the 1st millennium BC (Tsetskhladze 1998, 15–44). In that case, the Greeks who settled down in that area did not abandon their own traditions and habits, 14 Assuming that these types of vessels and techniques were only produced at afew sites in Bactria, and that potters did not follow only ceramic examples which came to Bactria via (sea) trade routes (Junker forthcoming).
58 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/2 were in constant contact with their homeland, and partly did not assimilate themselves in their new environment. Due to the early death of Alexander the Great and the great distance to the Greek core land, the Greeks who settled in Bactria would hardly have been able to maintain aremarkable cultural connection with the West, at least regarding the pottery changes. On the other hand, one is not even aware of what kind of Greeks settled in Bactria, what traditions they brought with them, and how the assimilation process took place (depending on both sides). Although acertain affinity to Greek culture in the Greco -Bactrian kingdom is ascertainable, there seems to have been no overall cultural change– at least it is not reflected in the archaeological record. Ai Khanoum stands out alone and, for this reason, is not representative of other Hellenistic sites in Bactria and their pottery collections. The ceramic repertoire of each site and region is composed differently and so far, cannot be dated due to the state of research, especially regarding arelative chronology. As long as the Bactrian pottery of the Hellenistic period has not been finally defined and classified, no research results can be formulated that concern, for example, external influences or identity assignments (Junker forthcoming). CONCLUSION ‘Le fait le plus étonnant est le caractère éminemment grec de la céramique fabriquée dans la région pendant toute cette période’ (Gardin 1990, 187).15 According to his hypothesis, the Bactrian pottery shows astrong Greek influence, which could be explained by the presence of Greek settlers in Bactria. This assumption has grown over the last decades into afact that has never been questioned for its correctness. In the early Hellenistic period, research initially identified afew shapes, such as the crater, bowls with incurved rims and fish -plates, as indicators of achange process in pottery production, which was triggered by the settlement of Greeks. However, these new shapes are more likely to be alocal interpretation of different vessels, whose origin could be derived from different models. The hypothesis of aGreek origin does not have to be ruled out, but at the same time cannot be verified on the basis of apurely typological comparison either– since the Bactrian potters do not seem to have followed astrict (Mediterranean or other regional) paradigm. However, assuming that these shapes should nevertheless be interpreted as markers of aGreek identity, some difficulties arise. For example, one could assume that the new shapes should have enriched the entire Bactrian ceramic repertoire, such as drinking vessels or cooking ware. The latter are generally considered to be unique identifiers as foreign cooking practices often differ from local traditions, especially during the first generation of settlers (Bunimovitz– Yasur -Landau 1996, 89–93). Since neither kantharoi nor skyphoi or lopades can be found in the pottery material of Bactria, the hypothesis of the influence on the ceramic production in Bactria by the Greek settlers cannot be confirmed on the basis of the ceramic finds. Thus, during the early Hellenistic period, when most Greek immigrants were settled in Bactria, no introduction of standard Mediterranean pottery shapes can be determined. Therefore, the idea of Mediterranean -like eating and drinking customs needs to be excluded. But it can still be assumed that the process of the introduction of new shapes like plates and 15 ‘The most astonishing fact is the eminently Greek character of the ceramics made in the region during this whole period.’
59KRISTINA JUNKER bowls was enlarged by the new settlers from the West as well as by local population who (together) created anew material culture, that is now named the Hellenistic culture of Bactria. Only in the course of the 2 nd century BC were imitations of decidedly Greek -Mediterranean vessel shapes produced: mould -made relief bowls, net -pattern cups, stamped open vessel shapes, moulded figurine handle attachments, and the so -called Pergamenian bowls. However, these vessels should not be interpreted as proof of direct and strong contact with the Mediterranean world, as was assumed by Gardin and Lyonnet: ‘[Gardin] had noticed the great speed with which innovations and fashions diffused from the Mediterranean to Central Asia’ (Lyonnet 2012, 157, after: Gardin 1985, 447–460; Gardin 1990, 192–193). On the one hand, shapes of aclear Mediterranean origin are scarcely found throughout the Bactrian territories and should consequently be linked to acertain group of Bactrian people. On the other hand, it may be assumed that these vessel shapes were not produced to relate to the ‘Greekness’ of their users, but were probably used to demonstrate aphilhellenic lifestyle and an affinity to the Hellenistic Mediterranean world. Similar processes can be observed for example in the Parthian kingdom, where to some degree the Greek style was part of the higher ‘class’ lifestyle (Frumkin 1970, 152). Consequently, these shapes should not be interpreted as evidence of aGreek population in Bactria. On the basis of this study, astrong Mediterranean influence on Bactrian pottery production must therefore be rejected. However, it applies in certain aspects to the ceramic material of Ai Khanoum, asite of mainly the 2nd century BC that, due to its layout, architecture and finds, differs significantly from other sites. Its outstanding position compared to other Bactrian sites of the Hellenistic period is also observable in the ceramic repertoire, which consists of significantly more Greek inspired vessel shapes compared to other Bactrian sites (Junker forthcoming). However, the ceramic repertoire of Ai Khanoum did not define the Bactrian production as awhole: each site (with its different function) was differently tied to the trading network and its people (composed of different groups) had aspecial interest in vessel shapes that fitted their needs. This assumption can be proven by the fact that not all shapes known in Ai Khanoum can be found at all Bactrian sites, acondition that probably highlights the different Bactrian groups as well as the variable contacts between the settlements that were spread throughout the Bactrian territory. Consequently, terms such as ‘ceramic complex of the type Ai Khanoum’ are misleading and the assumed strong Greek influence on the Bactrian pottery should be moderated. In contrast, the Bactrian pottery production was characterized by local traditions and innovations throughout the Hellenistic period. SOURCES Arrian Anab. = Lucius Flavius Arrianus: Der Alexanderzug. Griechisch und Deutsch. Sammlung Tusculum. Editors: Gerhard Wirth– Oskar von Hinüber. München– Zürich 1985. Diodorus = Diodorus Siculus: Griechische Weltgeschichte. Editors: Otto Veh– Gerhard Wirth. Volume A(book XVIII–XX). Stuttgart 2005. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdullaev 1976 = Абдуллаев, А.: Основные типы керамики Тамошо -тепе раннего периода. Археологические Работы вТаджикистане 12, 38–42.
60 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/2 Abdullaev– Bubnova– P‘yankova 1975 = Абдуллаев, А.– Бубнова, М.А.– Пьянкова, Л.Т.: Отчет оработах Яванского отряда в1971 г. Археологические Работы вТаджикистане 11, 250–262. Bernard, P.1996: The Greek kingdoms of Central Asia. In: J. Harmatta (ed.): History of civilizations of Central Asia 2. The development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. Paris, 99–130. Bolelov 2001 = Болелов, С.Б.: Гончарная мастерская III–II веков до н. э. на Кампыртепа. In: Э.В. Ртвеладзе (ed.): Археологические исследования Кампыртепа. Материалы Тохаристанской экспедиции 2. Ташкент, 15–30. Bolelov 2011 = Болелов, С.Б.: Производственный центр эпохи эллинизма на Кампыртепа. Материалы Тохаристанской экспедиции 8. Елец, 48–79. Bunimovitz, S.– Yasur -Landau, A. 1996: Philistine and Israelite Pottery. AComparative Approach to the Question of Pots and People. Tel Aviv. Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 23/1, 88–101. Cox, D.H. 1949: The Greek and Roman pottery. The excavations at Dura -Europos. Final report 4.1.2. New Haven. Denisov 1980 = Денисов, Е.П.: Отчет оработе Дангаринского Отряда. Археологические Работы вТаджикистане 17, 97–109. D’yakonov 1953 = Дьяконов, М.М.: Археологические работы внижнем течении реки Кафирнигана (Кобадиан) (1950–1951 гг.). Материалы иИсследования по Археологии СССР 37, 253–293. Družinina, A. forthcoming: Studien zum Siedlungswesen in achämenidischer und hellenistischer Zeit in Baktrien. Dvurechenskaya 2015 = Двуреченская, Н.Д.: Квопросу ораннеэллинистической керамике Бактрии (на основе закрытого комплекса террасного дома Кампыртепа). In: В.П. Никоноров– В.А. Алёкшин (eds.): Академическое востоковедение вРоссии истранах Ближнего Зарубежья (2007–2015). Археология, история, культура. Cанкт -Петербург, 195–225. Frumkin, G. 1970: Archaeology in Soviet Central Asia. Leiden– Köln. Gaibov 2004 = Гаибов, В.Г.: Раннеэллинистическая керамика Маргианы. Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры 14, 600–608. Gardin, J.-C. 1985: Les relations entre la Méditerrannée et la Bactriane dans l’Antiquité d’après des données céramologiques inédites. In: J.-L. Huot– M. Yon– Y. Calvet (eds.): De l’Indus aux Balkans. Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes. Paris, 447–460. Gardin, J.-C. 1990: La céramique hellénistique en Asie centrale. Problèmes d’interpretation. In: Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie in Berlin 1988. Mainz, 187–193. Gardin, J.-C. 1998: Description des sites et notes de synthése. Prospections archéologiques en Bactriane orientale (1974–1978) 3. Paris. Gentelle, P.1989: Données paléogéographiques et fondements de l’irrigation. Prospections archéologiques en Bactriane orientale (1974–1978) 1. Paris. Grenet, F. 1983: L’ onomastique iranienne à Aï Khanoum. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 107, 373–781. Guldager -Bilde, P.1993: Mouldmade bowls, centres and peripheries in the Hellenistic world. In: P.Bilde– T. Engberg -Pedersen– L. Hannestad– K. Randsborg– J. Zahle (eds): Centre and periphery in the Hellenistic world. Aarhus, 192–209. Guldager -Bilde, P.2008: Mouldmade bowls. In: P.Guldager -Bilde– B. Poulsen (eds.): The Temple of Castor and PolluxII.1. The finds. Rome, 187–191. Hannestad, L. 1983: The Hellenistic pottery from Failaka with asurvey of Hellenistic pottery in the Near East. Ikaros. The Hellenistic settlements 2. Aarhus. Hannestad, L. 1990: Change and Conservatism. Hellenistic Pottery in Mesopotamia and Iran. In: Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie in Berlin 1988. Mainz, 179–186. Haque, E.– Rahman, S.S.M.– Ahsan, S.M.K. 2001: Apreliminary report on Wari -Bateshwar trial excavation by ICSBA. Journal of Bengal Art 5, 11–40. Hedge, K.T.M. 1978: Analysis of ancient Indian deluxe ware. In: Proceedings of the 18 th International Symposium on Archaeometry and Archaeological Prospection. Bonn, 154.
61KRISTINA JUNKER Houal, J.-B. 2016: The Hellenistic Period through the Ceramic of Balkh (Afghanistan) and Termez (Ouzbékistan). In: S. Japp– P.Kögler (eds.): Traditions and Innovations. Tracking the Development of Pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial Periods. Proceedings of the 1 st Conference of IARPotHP in Berlin 2013. Wien, 465–478. Junker, K. 2020: Der Nachbar im Fernen Osten und die griechisch -hellenistische Keramik. Die griechisch beeinflussten Keramikformen aus dem hellenistischen Heiligtum und der Siedlung von Torbulok, Tadschikistan. In: I. Kamenjarin– M. Ugarković (eds.): Exploring the Neighborhood. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of IARPotHP in Kaštela 2017. Wien, 665–685. Junker, K. forthcoming: Die Keramik der hellenistischen Epoche aus Nordostbaktrien. Studien zu den Keramikkollektionen der hellenistischen Epoche aus Baktrien und ihrer Kontextualisierung. Khlopin 1968 = Хлопин, И.Н.: Раскопки на Намазга -депе. Археологические открытия. 1967 год, 349–350. Kunisch, N. 1990: Griechische Fischteller. Natur und Bild. Berlin. Lerner, J.D. 2003/2004: Correcting the Early History of Āy Kānoum. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35/36, 373–410. Lerner, J.D. 2010: Revising the chronologies of the Hellenistic colonies of Samarkand -Marakanda (Afrasiab II–III) and Aї Khanoum (Northeastern Afghanistan). Anabasis. Studia classica et orientalia 1, 58–79. Lhuillier, J. 2016: The transition period from Bronze Age to Iron Age in Central Asia. Atribute to V.I. Sarianidi. In: N.A. Dubova– E.V. Antonova– P.M. Kozhin– M.F. Kosarev– R.G. Muradov– R.M. Sataev– A.A. Tishkin (eds.): Памяти Виктора Ивановича Сарианиди. Труды Маргианской археологической экспедиции 6. Moskva, 509–521. Litvinskij 2000 = Литвинский, Б.А.: Бактрийский храм Окса ивосточноиранский эллинизм. Проблемы игипотезы 2, 213–221. Lyonnet, B. 1997: Céramique et peuplement du chalcolithique à la conquête arabe. Prospections archéologiques en Bactriane orientale (1974–1978) 2. Paris. Lyonnet, B. 2001: Les Grecs, les Nomades et l’indépendance de la Sogdiane, d’après l’occupation comparée d’Aï Khanoum et de Marakanda au cours des derniers siècles avant notre ère. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 12, 141–159. Lyonnet, B. 2012: Questions on the Date of the Hellenistic Pottery from Central Asia (Ai Khanoum, Marakanda and Koktepe). Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 18, 143–173. Lyonnet, B. 2013a: La céramique de la maison du quartier sud -ouest d’Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan). In: G. Lecuyot (ed.): L’habitat. Fouilles d’Aї Khanoum 9. Paris, 179–192. Lyonnet, B. 2013b: La céramique hellénistique en Asie centrale. In: N. Fenn– Ch. Roemer -Strehl (eds.): Networks in the Hellenistic World According to the pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Universities of Cologne and Bonn 2011. Oxford, 351–368. Mairs, R.2007: Ethnicity and Funerary Practice in Hellenistic Bactria. In: H. Schroeder– P.Bray– P.Gardner– V. Jefferson– E. Macaulay -Lewis (eds.): Crossing Frontiers. The opportunities and challenges of interdisciplinary approaches to archaeology. Oxford, 111–124. Mairs, R.2008: Greek identity and the settler community in Hellenistic Bactria and Arachosia. Migrations and Identities 1, 19–43. Mairs, R.2013: The Temple with Indented Niches at Ai Khanoum. Ethnic and civic identity in Hellenistic Bactria. In: R. Alston– O.M. van Nijf– Ch.G. Williamson (eds.): Cults, creeds and identities in the Greek city after the Classical Age. Leuven– Paris– Walpole, 85–115. Mairs, R.2014a: The Hellenistic Far East. Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia. Oakland. Mairs, R.2014b: Models, moulds and mass production: the mechanics of stylistic influence form the Mediterranean to Bactria. Ancient West & East 13, 175–195. Martinez -Sève, L. 2014: The Spatial Organization of Ai Khanoum, aGreek City in Afghanistan. American Journal of Archaeology 118/2, 267–283.
62 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/2 Maxwell -Jones, C. 2015: Typology and Chronology of Ceramics of Bactra, Afghanistan, 600 BCE–500 CE. Dissertation. University of Michigan. Michigan. McPhee, I. – Trendall, A.D. 1987: Greek Red -figured Fish -plates. Basel. Mkrtychev– Bolelov 2006 = Мкртычев, Т.К.– Болелов, С.Б.: Стратиграфия юго -восточной части цитадели Кампыртепа. In: Э.В. Ртвеладзе (ed.): Материалы Тохаристанской экспедиции 5. Ташкент, 43–66. Pfrommer, M. 1993: Metalwork from the Hellenized East. Catalogue of the collections in the J. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu. Pidaev 1984 = Пидаев, Ш.Р.: Керамика Джига -тепе (из раскопок 1976 г.). Материалы Советско -Афганской археологической экспедиции 3. Moskva, 112–124. Pidaev 1991 = Пидаев, Ш.Р.: Керамика греко -бактрийского времени сгородища Старого Термеза. Советская археология 1, 210–224. Rapin, C.– Grenet, F. 1983: Les inscriptions économiques de la trésorerie hellénistique d’Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan). Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 107, 315–372. Rotroff, S.I. 1982a: The Hellenistic pottery. Athenian and imported moldmade bowls. The Athenian Agora 22. Princeton. Rotroff, S.I. 1982b: Silver, glass, and clay. Evidence for the dating of Hellenistic luxury tableware. Hesperia 51, 329–337. Rotroff, S.I. 1997: Hellenistic pottery. Athenian and imported wheel made tableware and related material. The Athenian Agora 29. Princeton. Rotroff, S.I. 2003: Relief wares. In: S.I. Rotroff– A. Oliver (eds.): The Hellenistic pottery from Sardis. The finds through 1994. Cambridge, 89–178. Rotroff, S.I. 2005: Four centuries of Athenian pottery. In: V. Stolba– L. Hannestad (eds.): Chronologies of the Black Sea area in the period c. 400–100 B.C. Aarhus, 11–30. Rotroff, S.I. 2006: The Introduction of the Moldmade Bowl Revisited. Tracking aHellenistic Innovation. Hesperia 75/3, 357–378. Schlumberger, D.– Bernard, P.1965: Aï Khanoum. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 89, 590–657. Sedov 1984 = Седов, А.В.: Керамические комплексы ай -ханумского типа вправобережье Амударьи. Советская археология 3, 171–180. Sharmin, D.– Okada, F. 2012: Surface Coating Technique of Northern Black Polished Ware by the Microscopic Analysis. Ancient Asia 29/2, 49–65. de Sousa, E. 2019: Fish -plates in Western Iberia. Between internal evolution and the incorporation of the Hellenistic model. In: A. Peignard -Giros (ed.): Daily life in acosmopolitan world. Proceedings of the 2 nd Conference of IARPotHP in Lyon 2015. Wien, 301–312. Stark, S. 2016: Hellenism at the Fringes. On the Relationship between Bactria and Western Sogdiana (Bukhara oasis). In: А.Э. Бердимурадов (ed.): История иархеология Турана 3. Самарканд, 134–150. Steinetal. 1996 = Stein, G.J.– Bernbeck, R.– Coursey, C.– McMahon, A.– Miller, N.E.– Misir, A.– Nicola, J. – Pittman, H.– Pollock, S.– Wright, H.: Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities. An Interim Report on the 1992–1993 Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 100/2, 205–260. Sverchkov 2006 = Сверчков, Л.М.: Опыт синхронизации керамических комплексов эпохи эллинизма (Кампыртепа, Термез, Джигатепа, Курганзол). Материалы Тохаристанской экспедиции 5. Ташкент, 105–124. Sverchkov, L.M. 2008: The Kurganzol fortress (on the history of Central Asia in the Hellenistic era). Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 14, 123–191. Sverchkov, L.M. 2009: Die Grabungen im Fort Kurgansol im Süden Usbekistans– neue Daten zur Geschichte Zentralasiens am Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. In: S. Hansen– A. Wieczorek– M. Tellenbach (eds.): Alexander der Grosse und die Öffnung der Welt. Begleitband der Ausstellung, Mannheim 2009–2010. Mannheim– Regensburg, 145–153.
63KRISTINA JUNKER Sverchkov 2013 = Сверчков, Л.М.: Курганзол– крепость Александра на юге Узбекистана. Ташкент. Sverchkov, L.M.– Boroffka, N. 2013: The Jaz II and Jaz III Period Pottery. Classification and Chronology Viewed from Bandykhan, Southern Uzbekistan. In: M. Wagner (ed.): Pottery and Chronology of the Early Iron Age in Central Asia. Warszawa, 49–74. Sverchkov– Boroffka 2016 = Сверчков, Л.М.– Бороффка, Н.: Период Яз -II. Этапы иХронология. Вестник археологии, антропологии иэтнографии 32/1, 5–13. Sverchkov– Voskovskiy 2006 = Сверчков, Л.М.– Восковский, А.А.: Стратиграфия, периодизация ихронология нижних слоёв Кампыртепа. In: Материалы Тохаристанской экспедиции 5. Ташкент, 21–46. Tikhonov 2010 = Тихонов, Р.В.: Эллинистическая керамика северной Бактрии всвете новых археологических исследований. Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры 3, 90–101. Tikhonov 2011a = Тихонов, Р.В.: Квопросу одатировке раннеэллинистических керамических комплексов Бактрии. In: Материалы Тохаристанской экспедиции 8. Елец, 202–216. Tikhonov 2011b = Тихонов, Р.В.: Местные типы керамики Бактрии Эллинистического времени. Проблемы Истории, Филологии, Культуры 31, 53–61. Tikhonov 2011c = Тихонов, Р.В.: Основные тенденции развития керамики Бактрии Эллинистического периода. Проблемы Истории, Филологии, Культуры 2, 95–101. Tikhonov 2012a = Тихонов, Р.В.: История изучения эллинисической керамика Бактриии на современном этапе (Конец 1900-х– начало 2000-х ГГ.). Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры 4, 311–318. Tikhonov 2012b = Тихонов, Р.В.: Местные традиции иГреческие новации вкерамическом ремесле Бактрии эпохи Эллинизма. Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры 5, 128–143. Tikhonov 2013 = Тихонов, Р.В.: Квопросу об эллинизации гончарного ремесла Бактрии. Stratum plus 3, 321–329. Tsetskhladze, G. 1998: Greek Colonization of the Black Sea Area. Stages, Models, and Native Population. In: G. Tsetskhladze (ed.): The colonization of the Black Sea Area. Historical Interpretation of Archaeology. Stuttgart, 9–68. Valtz, E. 1991: New observations on the Hellenistic pottery from Seleucia -on -the -Tigris. In: K. Schippmann– A. Herling– J.-F. Salles (eds.): Golf -Archäologie. Mesopotamien, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Oman. Internationale Archäologie 6. Göttingen, 45–55. Valtz, E. 2000: Ceramica invetriata. Caratteristiche ed evoluzione della produzione di Seleucia ad Tigrim. In: Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte syro -palestinienne). Actes du colloque tenu à la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen Jean Pouilloux du 2 au 4 mars 2000. Lyon, 331–337. Wu, X.– Sverchkov, L.M.– Boroffka, N. 2017: The 2010–2011 Seasons of Excavations at Kyzyltepa (VIth–IVth Centuries BCE), Southern Uzbekistan. Iranica Antiqua 52, 283–362. Young, G.M. 1946: Anew hoard from Taxila (Bhir Mound). Ancient India 1, 27–36. Zeymal 1961 = Зеймаль, Т.И.: Разведывательные работы вВахшсқои Долине в1959 г. Археологические Работы вТаджикистане 7, 143–152. Zeymal 1969 = Зеймаль, Т.И.: Вахшская долина вдревности ираннем средневековье. Ленинград. Kristina Junker Eurasien Abteilung Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Im Dol 2-6, Haus II DE-14195 Berlin [email protected]
156 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXV/2 Pl. 2/1.: Acooking pot found in Torbulok. Photo by K. Junker. Pl. 2/2.: The Megarian bowl found in Tepai Diniston, southern Tajikistan. Photo by K. Junker, For the drawing see Denisov 1980, 105, fig. 4.
157PLATES Pl. 2/3.: Fragment of amolded figurine handle attachment. Pictures of the fresh break of grey ware fragments. Photo by K. Junker.