The Central Monument of Akchakhan Kala F

Bulletin of the Asia Institute
New Series/Volume 25
2011 [2015]
Published with the assistance of the Neil Kreitman Foundation (U.K.)

Contents
Yishai Kiel and “The Sabbath Was Made for Humankind”: A Rabbinic and
Prods Oktor Skjærvø Christian Principle in Its Iranian Context 1
Stephanie W. Jamison Avestan xšuuīd: A Relic of Indo-Iranian Ritual Vocabulary 19
Dieter Weber Testing Food and Garment for the Ōstāndār: Two Unpublished
Documents from the “Pahlavi Archive” in Berkeley, CA 31
Nicholas Sims-Williams; A Bactrian Document from Southern Afghanistan? 39
with an Appendix by
Étienne de la Vaissière
Zsuzsanna Gulácsi Picturing Mani’s Cosmology: An Analysis of Doctrinal
and Jason BeDuhn Iconography on a Manichaean Hanging Scroll from 13th/
14th-Century Southern China 55
C. Jullien La révolte des chrétiens au Hūzestān (551) : modèles narratifs
d’une historiographie 107
Michele Minardi and The Central Monument of Akchakhan-kala: Fire Temple, Image
Gairatdin Khozhaniyazov Shrine or Neither? Report on the 2014 Field Season 121
Harry Falk A Bronze Tub with a Brāhmī Inscription from Swat 147
Peter Skilling Stūpas, Aśoka and Buddhist Nuns: Early Buddhism in Ujjain
and Malwa 157
Anya King Eastern Islamic Rulers and the Trade with Eastern and Inner Asia
in the 10th–11th Centuries 175
Guitty Azarpay Richard Nelson Frye 1920–2014 187
Review
OSMUND BOPEARACHCHI. From Bactria to Taprobane: Selected
Works of Osmund Bopearachchi (Holt) 189
Books Received 191

Abbreviations 193
Color plates including images from Nicholas Sims-Williams

and Zsuzsanna Gulácsi and Jason BeDuhn follow p. 106 in
this volume.
v
The Central Monument of Akchakhan-kala:
Fire Temple, Image Shrine or Neither?
Report on the 2014 Field Season
M IC H E L E M I NA R DI A N D G A I R AT DI N K H O ZH A N I YA Z OV
university of bordeaux, ausonius umr 5607 cnrs; research institute of the humanities, academy of
sciences of uzbekistan, karakalpak branch, nukus
Introduction part of Turkmenistan, district of Daşoguz (ig. 1).

The territory of this polity is characterised by a
The Karakalpak-Australian Expedition to An- very rich historical landscape with many fortiied
cient Chorasmia (KAE) archaeological works at strongholds (the Russian gorodishche),1 which
the “Mausoleum” of the Ancient Chorasmian site were used to secure and control a vast irrigated
of Akchakhan-kala in modern-day Uzbekistan/ agricultural territory marked by canalisation
Karakalpakstan resumed in 2014 after a hiatus of works and other infrastructures. This “oasis,”
almost twenty years. New data on this structure, surrounded by the desert wastes of the Kizil-kum
located at the exact centre of the upper enclosure of and Kara-kum, developed mainly on the fertile
the site, underline its monumental characteristics delta of the Amu River (the Oxus) in particular
and help to rectify and update the preliminary hy- since the VI century b.c., when the irst monu-
potheses presented in 2001 by the KAE. Examined mental architecture appeared, probably due to
in the historical context of I century b.c.–II century an external intervention in the area by the Ach-
a.d. Chorasmia, Akchakhan-kala has proven to be aemenids.2 Its culture and history, which had de-
a site incredibly rich in archaeological data that are veloped since that time in a cultural continuum,
enlarging our historical knowledge on this ancient entered a new and radically different phase only
polity and more in general on the Central Asian with the advent of the Arabs and the Islamisation
region during Antiquity. The Central Monument of the country at the beginning of the VIII cen-
of Akchakhan-kala, a Chorasmian royal seat aban- tury a.d.3 Although not strongly inluenced by
doned at the end of the II century a.d., from which Hellenism as was the rest of Central Asia during
a new perspective on Zoroastrianism is emerging, the II century b.c., Chorasmia did acquire some
is perhaps one of the most interesting complexes of its culture. The polity always had relationships
related to this Eastern-Iranian region and to Zoro- with the other sedentary polities of Central Asia
astrian religion. and also with the semi-nomadic populations of
dwellers of the northern steppes; its geographical
position favoured the cultural exchanges between
Historical Background these two “worlds” but also local conservatism.
It is only during the I–II centuries a.d. that Cho-
Ancient Chorasmia is a polity that belonged to the rasmia progressively lost its partial isolation and
Indo-Iranian koiné of Central Asia. It corresponds was integrated into a broader network of external
to today’s northern areas of Uzbekistan, i.e. the relations.4
territories of the Republic of Karakalpakstan and More recently, in relation to the history of ar-
the district of Khorezm, and the north-western chaeology, this territory had a very important past
121
m i n a r d i a n d k h o z h a n i y a z o v : The Central Monument of Akchakhan-kala
Fig. 1. Geographical outline of Ancient Chorasmia with location of main sites. (All drawings and photos by M. Minardi except
ig. 2.)
as the theatre of operations of the Soviet “Cho- Complex of Akchakhan-kala (belonging to its
rasmian Archaeological-Ethnographical Expedi- I century b.c.–I century a.d. stage)10 and the cultic
tion, division of the USSR Academy of Sciences” structure of Tash-k’irman tepe where ire played
(KhAEE) led by S. P. Tolstov (1907–1976), an ex- a certain central role.11 The Akchakhan-kala wall
pedition that endeavoured to rediscover this ne- paintings had, for instance, very recently led to
glected part of Central Asia with one of the most two important discoveries regarding this site and
signiicant archaeological efforts of all times.5 Chorasmian society in general: the gorodishche
In more recent years, since 1995, the Karakal- used to be a royal seat, as proven by Chorasmo-
pak-Australian Expedition to Ancient Chorasmia Aramaic epigraphic evidence,12 and a ceremonial
(KAE)6 with its ield work mainly focused on the centre related to Zoroastrianism,13 as witnessed
extensive archaeological excavations of the unex- by the discovery of unmistakable Zoroastrian
plored sites of Tash-k’irman tepe (ca. II century symbols painted on the plastered mud-brick
b.c.–II century a.d.)7 and Akchakhan-kala (II cen- walls of the Columned Hall of the Ceremonial
tury b.c.–II century a.d.)8 added to the history Complex.14
of Ancient Chorasmia new important data that Akchakhan-kala is a gorodishche principally
helped to revise the polity’s traditional histori- characterised by being encircled by two systems
ography and chronology expressed in the KhAEE of defensive works (the rectangular lower and an
works.9 Of the utmost importance is the corpus upper enclosures—ig. 2) and by the presence of a
of wall paintings discovered in the Ceremonial “citadel,” i.e. the Ceremonial Complex (Area 10),
122
Fig. 2. General plan of Akchakhan-kala (KAE).
located on the north-western corner of the upper among the few pieces of evidence, a burnt frag-
enclosure, where the wall paintings have been ment of ivory furniture of Hellenistic taste has
discovered with other scanty but signiicant been found: it is very possible that this carved
inds. The scarcity of archaeological material in ivory leg is what remains of a ire altar.15 Field
the Ceremonial Complex is due to the fact that work indicates that the Central Monument and
this part of the gorodishche was abandoned and the Ceremonial Complex would have been con-
cleared during its II century a.d. stage. However, nected through some path yet to be discovered:
123
the main gate of the Ceremonial Complex ap- ered almost twenty years ago in dificult condi-
pears on present evidence to be the southern one, tions18 and without proper survey equipment.
and it opens to a descending route lanked by two The area was irst cleared of the sand in order to
small ediices characterised by ire features.16 control the preservation status of the structures,
The Central Monument of Akchakhan-kala to plan them and to conirm the position of the
(Area 07—approximately 2,180 sq. m) is located at old trenches. These operations were concentrated
the geometric centre of the upper enclosure wall of primarily around the two plinths, where trenches
the gorodishche (ig. 2) and stands above the level around their perimeter have been identiied and
of all other constructions at the site: its highest partially emptied of their sand backilling, and
preserved point is 9 m greater than the elevation secondly on top of the ramp, which was only par-
of the loor level of the Ceremonial Complex. The tially identiied and planned during the previous
complex mainly consists of a building composed investigations.19 The area north of the western
of two square solid towers/plinths made of mud- plinth (Area 07-02) along with a small area on
bricks (ca. 10.5 m per side), connected through the eastern side of the ramp have also been in-
a vaulted chamber in their midst (ig. 3, general vestigated (Area 07-01, see ig. 3). These works re-
plan of the complex; ig. 4, sections and ig. 5, to- sulted in the discovery of a new vaulted chamber
pography of the area). The westernmost of these on the northern side of the complex connected
two plinths is accessible by a mud-brick ramp on to the western plinth, and the individuation of
its southern side, a ramp that is parallel to the a stepped paksha basis for the mud-brick ramp
fortiication walls of the site (on a NE–SW axis) (on this infra). For reasons related to the preserva-
and orthogonal to the main Central Monument tion of the monument it was decided to avoid the
structure (igs. 6 and 7). The length of the ramp, clearance of the top of the plinths and of the ramp
from which the overlying sand was not fully re- except for the overlying sand.20
moved during the season, is ca. 35 m with a differ-
ence in elevation from the higher preserved point
(north) toward its end (south) of ca. 4 m. Its total Preliminary Notes on Stratigraphy
width is equivalent to ca. 9 m. On the northern and Architecture
and opposite side of the ramp (Area 07-02) is at-
tested an area of ca. 1,200 sq. m covered by a crust The evidence that emerged from the 2014 ield
of clay and scattered debris (that is above con- season gives us the opportunity for a better read-
texts of aeolian sand) with a difference of height ing of the Central Monument with some new
of ca. 4 m from the existing sand surface. This data that changes our former understanding of
was certainly formed by recent wash-off from the this monument.
top parts of the plinths. As now is known re: the First of all, we now know that the main part
ramp, the Central Monument also seems to have of the monument did not only consist of two
been raised on an artiicial platform, and this plinths lanking a vaulted rectangular chamber:
crust formed on top of the debris of the structures it is certain that on the northern portion of the
of the complex that were themselves overlain by monument—i.e. its façade—two other projecting
silting. Therefore the Akchakhan-kala Central vaulted rooms existed (igs. 8–11). In the case of
Monument, for its particular layout and position the western plinth, where the excavation con-
on high artiicial ground at the centre of the upper centrated in 2014, the vault (4 m of span) con-
enclosure, is most likely to have played a relevant nected this element to a room characterised in
role in the religious and political function of the its interior by steps directed toward the west
whole site. (ig. 10). On the front of the other opposite plinth
Area 07 was irst studied by the KAE in 1996. not only traces of the springer of the vault have
Sondages conducted by Helms, Betts and Yagodin been found (ig. 3, “remains of the E vault” and
led to a preliminary report published in 2001.17 ig. 9) but also the top part of another structure
The main scope of the 2014 campaign was to has been documented (ig. 3—“structures N of
rectify the preliminary plan of the monument the E plinth”). Therefore the monument did not
and to establish its general architectural layout seem to resemble a monumental arch at all, but a
and actual extent, collecting new data in order sub-structured terrace reachable from a ramp on
to integrate and update the previous ones gath- its southern side.
124
Fig. 3. General plan of the Central Monument of Akchakhan-kala as surveyed in 2014.
125
Fig. 4. Preliminary sections of the Central Monument.
The “room with steps” on the northern side ing—have been found, which points to the fact
of the monument measures 8.8 × 9.6 m, with that the chamber was robbed before its abandon-
its northern and southern walls of 2 m of thick- ment. It was then left exposed to the winds and
ness. The room is open on its eastern side while rain for a long period of time until aeolian deposi-
on the opposite western one the wall is eroded.21. tions of sand completely illed the area and were
The northern wall is 8.8 m and the southern one, sealed by the washed mud-bricks/clay coming
with the impost of the vault in front of the west- from the surrounding and higher structures. It is
ern plinth, is 4.8 m: it probably has a passage that very clear, however, that this building in its lat-
leads to the inside of the vaulted chambers (un- est phase was built as one architectural body: the
excavated—ig. 12). All these measurements are steps are clearly bonded to the walls (ig. 13).
relative to the poor state of preservation of the The southern access ramp, with an inclination
structure, which presents evident signs of erosion of 11 degrees, appears to be solidly built with
and washing: even the mud-brick steps (ten rows mud-bricks laid with clay mortar only at the top
supposedly) are almost completely washed away and sides of the structure.22 After the partial re-
in the northern portion of the room and badly moval of the sand on the eroded top of the ramp
preserved in the other parts. In the interior nei- (uncovered for a length of 35 m and probably 44 m
ther traces of a collapsed roof nor of any sort of long in total, see ig. 4, A)23 and the excavation
other material—if not for a few pottery fragments of the 1996 sand backilling on its north-eastern
washed inside the room from the rest of the build- side, a small sounding was carried out at a dis-
126
Fig. 5. Shaded relief and contour maps of Area 07.
tance of 18 m south of the western plinth where considering that its lowest known level is still
terrain conditions seemed more adequate in order 1.8 m higher than the Ceremonial Complex,25 it
to understand the ramp height and construction is probably part of the artiicial elevation of the
technique (Area 07-01; ig. 3). This revealed that whole architectural complex.
the mud-brick ramp is built on a stepped pakhsa The ramp runs up to and leans against the west-
platform (max. height 0.85 m)24 in its turn cover- ern plinth of the main vaulted structure; it sur-
ing a stepped clay basis (max. height 0.33 m) lying rounds its south-western corner (on the western
on the loor level (ig. 4, C). The loor level, a con- side for 5.6 m, on the southern one for ca. 3 m). The
text of compact clay, also sloped eastwards, and ramp was clearly built after the plinth, but in the
127
Fig. 6. The Central Monument viewed from the south. The access ramp is in the foreground.
Fig. 7. General view of the Central Monument from the south-east.
same stage. Moreover, thanks to its stratigraphic if one considers this round corner different from
relationship with the ramp, the south-western the others, might be advanced if we ponder on the
corner of the western plinth has been preserved, existence of a stepped end of the ramp reaching the
unlike the others: the corner appears rounded and top of the terrace sub-structured by the plinths and
delimited by half mud-bricks. Another hypothesis, the vaults (ig. 3—“stairs?”).26
128
Fig. 8. General view of the two plinths of the Central Monument from the north.
Fig. 9. The eastern plinth from the north-east.
These data have to be integrated with those ob- part of the Central Monument—overlies a mud-
tained in 1996 in a sondage on the western side brick basis of 1.5 m of height (no. 04) with an ele-
of the western plinth that partially concern the vation almost corresponding with the loor level
ramp. The section published in 2001 (Helms et al. of the Ceremonial Complex. Therefore, it seems
2001: ig. 14) shows the southern side of a deep, that the ramp and the central part of the Central
narrow sounding made following the line given Monument each have an artiicial but clearly dis-
by the north limit of the ramp: no. 12, which lies tinguished platform although designed in archi-
on top of a context of bricks and sand (no. 11) tectural unity.
and belongs to another platform of yet not clear The two massive28 mud-brick plinths at the
extent27 (unexcavated and covered by the col- centre of the complex measure 10 m per side. The
lapsed vault between the plinth and the “room highest preserved elevation point on the western
with steps”). According to the same sondage, the block is + 8.8 m from the loor level of the Cer-
structure—likely the platform of the northern emonial Complex, and + 5.8 from the loor level
129
Fig. 10. Remains of the vaulted roof of the northern side of the eastern plinth.
130
Fig. 11. Detail of the “pitched” mud-brick work of the main vault (western plinth).
Fig. 12. The unexcavated collapsed vault between the “room with steps” and the western plinth from the north-west.
131
Fig. 13. Plan and section of the “room with steps” of the Central Monument.
132
Fig. 14. Detail of the main vault between the plinths from the south (western plinth).
of the room with steps (roughly equivalent to the The vaulted chamber between the two massive
top of the ramp paksha basis where excavated in plinths used to cover the whole area between these
Area 07-01). If the maximum preserved height of two (45 sq. m) with a widest span of ca. 4.2 m and
the ramp in its mud-brick elevation at the con- an estimated rise of more than 2 m. The barrel
nection with the western plinth is 4.35 m, and vault has a parabolic cross-section with vertical
the plinths are + 1.4 m higher, the plinths are semicircular courses—i.e. it was built with the
preserved for approximately 6 m of their original “pitched-brick method”: the trapezoidal mud-
height not counting their platforms.29 On both bricks31 are not radial, but they are lodged in suc-
plinths the most elevated and less eroded parts cessive rings with their edges across the long axis
are the interior corners of the north façade. It is of the vault, with each ring inclined at a 21° angle
important to note that in the 2001 section what to rest on its predecessor,32 while the shoulders of
is indicated as “mudbrick revetment” (as no. 15), the vault consist of horizontal square bricks gradu-
is actually a fallen portion of the wall of the west- ally shifted inwards (igs. 14–15). Mud mortar was
ern plinth.30 This portion of wall—that measures used, as in all the other structure of the site.33 It is
4.4 m in length—can help in the reconstruction unclear whether a thick arch or an actual end wall
of the height of the plinths, which in this hypo- supported the vault on its southern side, a neces-
thetical case should be, considering the height of sary device for this type of construction.34 Almost
the fallen side wall of the plinth on the western of equivalent width and built with the same tech-
side, and considering as the loor level the lowest nique are the two other identiied vaults on the
elevation point inside the stepped room, at least northern side of the complex, each with a span of
of 8 m. ca. 4 m. Of the eastern one only few in situ bricks
133
Fig. 15. The “room with steps” viewed from the north-east.
remain (ig. 10, ig. 3—“remains of the E vault”), ing on pillars on their ends) overlying the central
while the western one has been identiied but not vault.35 Some traces of this convergence remain
excavated (ig. 12, ig. 3—“W vaulted room”). on the north-eastern corner of the western plinth,
The incline of the bricks of each vault follows which shows a rounded corner. Further excava-
a direction toward the outside of the complex tion data are needed in order to ascertain such ar-
(ig. 12). The three vaulted roofs crossed in a junc- chitectural features more in detail.36
tion on the northern side of the monument. But On the northern area in front of the eastern
it is unlikely that this t-shaped convergence of plinth and mirroring the opened eastern side of
vaults, consisting of the central one between the the “room with steps,” another portion of the
plinths and the two east and west wings, would complex has been identiied: it consists of the
have formed a domical vault: it is more probable remains of a wall measuring ca. 5 × 2.3 m with
that the main central vault, probably sustained traces of an arch or a vault open on its north
by a radial arched doorway at its northern end, side (ig. 3—“structures N of the E plinth”). This
was completed for all its extent and that the two might be a specular chamber of the stepped room,
other ones—the wings—overlay it. The wings, in opened on the interior of the complex although
this case, should also have had radial arches (rest- perhaps not perfectly symmetrical.
134
Pottery from the excavation came principally On the top of the plinths the structure reached
from the surface, from the sandy supericial con- a height of at least 9 m, thus ca. 11 m from the
texts and the contexts of sand mixed with washed loor level of the Columned Hall of the Ceremo-
clay and debris all formed after the abandonment nial Complex in its inal stage. The architectonic
of the complex. We do not yet have material effort applied by the Chorasmians to the Ak-
from a relevant stratigraphic sequence. Typologi- chakhan-kala Central Monument is considerable
cally speaking, within the common nomencla- although on a different and lesser scale when com-
ture created by the KhAEE, pottery shards range pared with the chronologically sequential palace
from “Late Kangyuĭ” to “Kushan” types, hence of Toprak-kala, built on a square solid mud-brick
chronologically in line with the rest of the site (II platform 14.3 m high with a side of 92.5 m.42
century b.c.–II century a.d., supra).37 Most of the It is the opinion of the author that the Ak-
specimens are fragments of khoums (pithoi) that chakhan-kala Central Monument was a cultic
used to be inserted in the masonry of the vaults.38 structure. First, for its position within the site of
A 1996 C14 sample (Helms et al. 2001: 138) Akchakhan-kala that in its turn used to be a royal
comes from a context that overlies the mud-brick seat of the Chorasmian kings and thus a central
basement (ibid. no. 04) with a range of 275–54 b.c. place that also yielded evidence of Zoroastrian
that its the chronology of the so called Kangyuĭ worship;43 and second, for its above-mentioned
pottery (III–mid I centuries b.c.) relative to Ak- unique layout without dwellings or halls: it is a
chakhan-kala Stage 2. Among the surface inds monumental artiicial terrace erected in a land—
there are some fragments of worked stone: “stone the whole “Right Bank” Chorasmia except for
bricks” and fragments of column bases of green the inhospitable Sultan-uiz-dag—characterised
limestone that differ completely from the sand- by a lat landscape. Additionally, the “room with
stone used for the column bases in the Ceremo- steps” not being a staircase44 points to the fact
nial Complex.39 that it might be considered an assembly place/
chapel such as those found in the contemporary
temples (I–II centuries a.d.) of Dura Europos and
The Central Monument as called by French archaeologists salles à gradins.45
Cultic Structure: Characteristics, If this hypothesis is correct then the question
Antecedents and Parallels to ask is: what kind of cultic structure this might
be? “In studying Zoroastrian sacred buildings one
According to the data so far available, the Cen- has to consider, not the single question (. . .) was
tral Monument of Akchakhan-kala in its latest this a ire temple or not, but the compound one,
phase40 appears to be an artiicial hillock crowned was this a ire temple, or an image shrine, or nei-
by a terrace of ca. 420 sq. m raised on two mud- ther?”46 and one must “distinguish between the
brick plinths and sub-structured by vaulted cham- place where the sacred ire was preserved (. . .)
bers. The terrace was accessible by a 44 m long and the place where the ire was brought from the
monumental ramp. This was the main body of the temple to a high area visible to the populace.”47
ediice, to which has to be added the “room with Keeping in mind that the excavation has just
steps,” which was probably covered by a lat tim- begun, we must consider that up to the present
bered roof if not open (and so not part of the ter- moment no traces of ire have been spotted on
race),41 and another chamber on its opposite side the Central Monument area,48 and the possibil-
which projected from the northern “façade” of the ity of identifying the Central Monument with a
plinths. On the other hand, if we consider among ire temple is currently rather speculative.49 At
the possibilities that the vaulted corridor was pro- the same time, no chambers that can possibly be
longed toward the north (with a vaulted roof?) image shrines have been identiied, or have traces
between the two northern chambers, the general of cultic images been found.
plan of the complex would then consist of a larger Since Herodotus,50 it has been well known to
sub-structured square terrace with a side of 25 m, scholars that the Persians had in origin a predilec-
developed around an intersection of vaulted cor- tion for practising their rituals in open spaces, a
ridors. In this case the “room with steps” should practice that developed through time and also al-
have had a timber roof, but it is unlikely that it lowed the subsequent architectonic development
was open on its eastern side as an iwan. of different religious places of worship.51 Based on
135
the evidence from Naqsh-i Rustam and Pasarga- At Ai-Khanoum in Hellenistic Bactriana, on
dae, it has been also assumed that to pray before the highest point of the acropolis, a sanctuary
an elevated ire could have been a rite peculiar to was erected open to the sky consisting of a square
a Zoroastrian king.52 The complex composed by courtyard with at its centre a square podium
the two stone plinths of Pasargadae (VI century (16 m per side).66 The complex, oriented toward
b.c.), enclosed into a sacred precinct53 spatially the east, had a stairway of baked brick leading up
related to a late/post Achaemenid mud-brick ter- to the middle of its west facade. With regard to
raced mound (partially made of mud-brick), is the high-placed Bactrian sanctuaries, it is also impor-
earliest known example of a Zoroastrian open air tant to mention the Kushan sanctuary of Surkh
sanctuary.54 Kotal: a ine example of a high-ground place of
In Iran (Elam) and Mesopotamia worship in worship (it had an acropolis with a temple acces-
natural and artiicially raised high places has a sible by a monumental staircase built on artiicial
long tradition, not necessarily connected with terraces) also with an accessory platform on the
Zoroastrianism.55 It is well known that since the plain 2 km east of the hill (with a last stage of the
III millennium in Mesopotamia, Eastern Iran and time of Huvishka).67
Central Asia ziggurat and ziggurat-like ediices In Chorasmia the irst cultic structures dat-
were erected.56 ing back to the Persian supremacy over this pol-
More recently, and closer to the subject dis- ity—that was an Achaemenid “nation” as well
cussed here, the open-air, high-ground places of as the neighbouring Sogdiana68—are the stepped
worship such as the cultic terraces built on Bard-é altars of Kyuzeli-gy < r (VI century b.c.), a “Left
Nechandeh/Bard-i Nishandeh and Masjed-i So- Bank” Chorasmian site that has been only par-
laiman (Susiana) with a Seleucid irst stage and a tially excavated and published.69 The site rises
further development during the Parthian period,57 on a natural hill and is enclosed by a fortiication
and the Seleucid, Parthian and Roman temples of wall. The citadel of Kyuzeli-gy < r is located at the
Syria that display a strong architectonic Hellenis- centre of the site in the most elevated point, and
tic inluence, are characterised by a traditional it consists of a complex of different buildings.70
ritual praxis that required towers and high places, In the southern part of this complex two rectan-
most likely showing continuity with those earlier gular mud-brick platforms are attested: the irst
Mesopotamian religious customs.58 Even the Me- of ca. 4 × 5 m, the other ca. 5 × 7 m, both placed
dian Fort and the Central Temple of Tepe Nush-i in open courtyards. The irst plinth has an access
Jan (VIII century b.c.–Achaemenid times)59 had an ramp of ca. 7 m that according to Vishnevskaya
internal ramp to gain access to their roofs. In Cen- and Rapoport (1997: 157) permits the reconstruc-
tral Asia, Iron Age platforms with “religious and tion of the height of this structure up to 3 m.
political functions” are attested at Koktepe60 and Layers of ashes “on the whole area” and a “deep
Sangir-tepe IIIC in Sogdiana (Uzbekistan).61 hole” at a distance of 4 m from the larger plinth
The two platforms of Koktepe were raised dur- illed with layers of ashes and a child’s skull,
ing the reorganization and strengthening of the might indicate the cultic character of this area.
site (Koktepe IIIa). The western one was accessible These data might be compared with those rela-
on its western lank by a staircase, a circumstance tive to the puriication ceremony hypothesised
not dissimilar to the Central Monument of Ak- for Koktepe.71 The Kyuzeli-gy < r platforms, accord-
chakhan-kala (and to the podium of Ai-Khanoum, ing to the excavators Vishnevskaya and Rapoport
infra). The Sogdian platforms are probably related (1997: 157–58), are comparable with the sacred
to Zoroastrianism62 and to Achaemenid sway in precinct structures of Pasargadae and might be
Central Asia.63 Also in Sogdiana, the site of Erkur- the sign of the codiication of new religious prac-
gan (III/II century b.c.) presents a mud-brick tower- tices.72 The Akchakhan-kala Central Monument
structured platform (36 × 25 m) that is accessible might be the I–II century a.d. local output of
via stairs from the south.64 Being located outside such primary ritual structural concept.
the site walls and with some human remains found The Akchakhan-kala Central Monument seems
on its top, it has been interpreted by the excavators an architectonic unicum even for Chorasmia.73
as a dakhma—an option that must be excluded The only comparable platform, similarly located
among the possible functions of the Zoroastrian in the middle of an enclosure and made of solid
Central Monument of Akchakhan-kala.65 mud-brick architecture, is a monument of the
136
“Left Bank” Chorasmia gorodishche Bol’shaya eign written sources that could have helped in
Aibuiĭr-kala (IV–II centuries b.c. according to the actual identiication of cultic structures.81 In
Mambetullaev).74 This solid mud-brick platform the contemporary religious architecture of Cho-
(ca. 10 × 8 m) is accessible by a short light of steps rasmia’s west the situation is almost equivalent,
(highest elevation 5 m from the loor level) and and it is hard to deine a proper Parthian religious
probably on its eastern side through a ramp (ca. architecture for Iran and its surroundings52 (not to
3 × 2.5 m). It is surrounded by several chambers mention the Achaemenid Empire). From a struc-
and walls of different stages, and a small mud- tural point of view, the same might be said for
brick podium with a central depression found in the architecture of Kushan Bactriana if we con-
a large room north of the main terrace has been sider, for example, the absence of any vaulting
interpreted as a ire altar.75 at the sanctuary of Surkh Kotal for reasons hard
Another similar case might be seen in the un- to deine.83 However, if in Central Asia and Iran
excavated “Right Bank” site of Bazar-kala. This an architectonic pattern (with strong variations)
gorodishche has an architectonic layout quite might be seen—i.e. the temple with a columned
similar to Akchakhan-kala with two rectangular cella84—this case again leaves out the Choras-
enclosures. The site pre-dates the foundation of mian polity up to the III/IV century a.d.85
Akchakhan-kala (IV century b.c.)76 and accord- The Akchakhan-kala Central Monument is an
ing to the irst KhAEE survey it had a central ele- artiicial high-ground/terrace accessible on one of
vated place in the middle of its lower enclosure.77 its sides through a monumental ramp. It is char-
Reference should also be made to a chronologi- acterised by two massive plinths and vaulted pas-
cally ensuing monument, still pre-dating the Ak- sages, and it seemed to have been decorated with
chakhan-kala Central Monument in its known special column bases different from the kind used
I–II century a.d. stage: the Southern Chorasmian in the Ceremonial Complex of Area 10. It also has
site of Elkharas.78 Elkharas is an isolated site con- an auxiliary room with steps, which as far as I
sisting of two buildings the “Western Building” know, is only comparable with some assembly/
(ca. 48 × 36 m) and the “Eastern Building” (ca. 84 accessory chapels present in the contemporary
× 24 m, with a lateral access ramp), roughly par- temple of Dura Europos in Syria (and apparently
allel to each other and strengthened by an outer a phenomenon exclusive of the I–II centuries
wall. The “Western Building” was character- a.d.).86 This room indicates the non-private char-
ised—as the Akchakhan-kala Central Monument acter of the complex, as well as its general archi-
is—by a symmetrical distribution of its internal tectural layout, but at the same time indicates
spaces (two rooms and a corridor) along a central that this structure was not a temple with living
axis consisting of a vaulted corridor. Moreover, it spaces for the clergy. And, inally, we have also
is probable that in a irst stage79 the construction to remember that the Central Monument was
had a square plan with a central corridor open built on an elevated platform at the centre of a
on symmetrical chambers, a layout that can be site, Akchakhan-kala, which provided important
compared with the Mausolée de la nécropole hors evidence regarding Ancient Chorasmian kingship
les-mur of Ai-Khanoum (III century b.c.) and the and religion (but almost none regarding adminis-
Naus of Dal’verzintepe (II–I century b.c.), both tration). The enclosures of Akchakhan-kala seem
with the same funerary function that is dissimilar to be mostly empty, and these walls were the irst
from that of Elkharas.80 constructions to have been raised along with the
Ceremonial Complex (late III–II century b.c.).87
Although at present for the Central Monument
Preliminary Conclusions moment it is not possible to ascertain any phas-
ing preceding the last one dating to the I–II cen-
Bearing in mind that much remains to be clari- turies a.d., its position seems to indicate that the
ied, an attempt may now be made to make some complex should have been part of the original and
preliminary inal considerations. organic planning of the site.
Chorasmian sacred architecture, for its vari- The presence of the ramp on one of the sides
ability and lack of an architectonic standard, has of the complex indicates that this was accessible
always been a dificult issue to assess. To this by a speciic path from the west (actually south-
we must add the chronic lack of local and for- west—in line with a gate of the upper enclosure)
137
and points to the fact that some processions must 9. For a challenge to the traditional chronology and
have ascended to the top of the monument where a new proposal based on the available evidence, see Mi-
there was some other outdoor performance. Con- nardi forthcoming with references.
sidering then the existence of a ire altar in the 10. On the wall paintings, see Kidd et al. 2008; Kidd
and Betts 2010; Kidd 2011.
private chambers of the Ceremonial Complex—
11. Betts and Yagodin 2008.
perhaps the “regnal ire” of the king88—this cen-
12. Yagodin and Betts pers. comm.; Kidd and Betts
tral and likely public monument raised from the 2010.
ground could have been used to display such ire 13. On the new evidence of Zoroastrianism in Cho-
during seasonal community festivals (Gāhāmbār) rasmia, see Betts et al. forthcoming. For some prelimi-
or court ceremonies that involved the king.89 It nary considerations, see Minardi forthcoming: 11–13
might even be inferred that this monument is a with references.
local Chorasmian interpretation of the stepped 14. Among the wall painting fragments unearthed
plinth/ire holder of Cyrus’ times in Pasarga- in the Columned Hall of Akchakhan-kala, there is a
dae, in a country where traditions were actively set of large pieces originally from its southern wall that
continuing (e.g. the use of the Imperial Aramaic when cleaned and restored in 2014 revealed the image
of a male personage wearing a mural crown and with a
script up to the Arab conquest, the local indig-
sheathed akinakes strapped to his right leg. This colos-
enous era that lasted for seven centuries, some
sal igure (5 m in height as is preserved from the crown
iconographic details on the Akchakhan-kala wall to the knee) wears a tunic decorated with a broad
paintings that are relics of an Achaemenid inlu- central panel. This panel is subdivided into smaller
ence). Field work will continue in 2015. sections and in each one of these there is a repeated
motif of two opposing androcephalous roosters wear-
ing masks that designate them as Zoroastrian priests.
Notes They also hold in one hand a barsom, the ritual bundle
of twigs associated with Zoroastrian ritual. For further
1. For a survey of the Chorasmian fortiied sites, see details, see Betts et al. forthcoming. The colossal igure
Khozhaniyazov 2005. has been tentatively identiied with the Avestan god
2. On the written and visual sources regarding the Srōsh.
relation between the Persian Empire and Chorasmia, 15. This piece was found lying on the ancient
see Minardi forthcoming with references. ground surface at the corner of a burnt rectangular area
3. On the end of the Late Antique facies of Ancient believed to be a ire altar (unpublished). The piece is
Chorasmia (IV century–a.d. 712), see Minardi 2013 published in Kidd 2011 and also considered in Minardi
with references. forthcoming: pp. 107–8, ig. 27.
4. For further references, see Minardi forthcoming. 16. Unpublished. Work led by M. Minardi during
5. Tolstov’s publications remain the milestones in seasons 2010 and 2011.
Chorasmian history (Tolstov 1948a, 1948b, 1962). For 17. Helms et al. 2001: 130–31 and 138–39 with
a full bibliography of the KhAEE published work, see a general plan (ig. 13), a section of one of the son-
Minardi forthcoming. dages (ig. 14) and a reconstruction (ig. 15) that is now
6. The KAE, led by A. V. G. Betts (University of Syd- superseded.
ney) and V. N. Yagodin (Academy of Sciences of Uzbeki- 18. The structures are covered by sand dunes, and
stan—Karakalpak branch) is a joint project supported the monument, due to its raised position, is quite often
by the Australian Research Council. The author’s post- swept by strong winds that result in small but strong
doctoral project is linked to biennial (2014–2015) ield dust storms.
work in this area, which has received inancial support 19. For their location, see Helms et al. 2001: ig. 13.
from the French State in the frame of the “Investments 20. This is why the mud-brick layout of the struc-
for the Future” Programme IdEx Bordeaux, reference tures is missing from the plans of this preliminary
ANR-10-IDEX-03–02. report.
7. Helms et al. 2001; Betts and Yagodin 2008. 21. The excavation included the outside on the
8. Helms and Yagodin 1997; Helms et al. 2001; western limit of the chamber as indicated in the plan,
Helms et al. 2002; Kidd and Betts 2010. In earlier pub- but it did not lead to any results (only multiple con-
lications the site of Akchakhan-kala (also spelled Ak- texts of clean sand and some scattered debris).
shakhan-kala) was called Kazakl’i-yatkan. The name 22. The internal core of the structure could actu-
has been changed from this local one to the name reg- ally have been made of pakhsa. This is only hypotheti-
istered in the oficial heritage record of Uzbekistan. On cal and ought to be ascertained although it is hinted
the C14 dating of the site, see in particular Betts et al. at by the presence of pakhsa at higher elevation along
2009 and forthcoming. the 1996 cut of the north-eastern side of the ramp (the
138
sondage was made at ca. 5 m south of the western uncertain for Achaemenid Susa (see Perrot 2010 with
plinth, see ig. 3). references; see also Amiet 2010). At Persepolis the
23. An actual sand dune overlies the ramp and still mud-brick substructures east of the Palace of Xerxes
covers its southern part. The hypothetical total length (Palace D) consisted of a series of mud-brick vaulted
is deduced from the available data. chambers but their technique is unknown (Francovich
24. The top elevation of this pakhsa basis is equiv- 1966, ig. 20 and Besenval 1984: 126). The other mud-
alent to the loor level of the room with steps. But like brick vaults known at Persepolis are those of the ram-
the mud-brick top part of the ramp, this pakhsa basis parts that show a variation of the “pitched” technique
seems to slope up toward north. (comparable with that of Median Tepe Nush-i Jan, see
25. Which is on its turn artiicially raised—forth- Besenval 1984: pp. 126–27, with pl. 67). In Ancient
coming “Akchakhan-kala: An Interim Report on the Chorasmia examples of the “pitched” technique are at-
Ceremonial Complex.” tested for instance in the vaulted roofs of Koĭ-Kry < lgan-
26. The top of the plinths has to be cleared in order kala (Tolstov and Vaĭnberg 1967: pp. 289–90 with ig.
to further investigate this matter. 118), at the palace of Toprak-kala (Nerazik and Rapo-
27. This area has been cleared to verify the relation- port 1981: pp. 23–24, with ig. 8), in the roofed rampart
ship between the ramp and the rest of the structure. walks of Ayaz-kala (Tolstov 1948a: p. 104, ig. 41; Voro-
Contexts 11 and 12 overlie the ramp. nina 1952), and at Elkharas in South Chorasmia (Itina
28. The plinths are not hollow. On the western side 1991: 87–88; Levina 2001—II century b.c. according to
of the western plinth a robber pit dug into the structure Minardi forthcoming)—but not at the earliest Choras-
points to this fact, as well as the collapsed eastern por- mia stronghold of Kyuzeli-gy < r (Vishnevskaya and Rapo-
tion of the eastern plinth where the mud-brick frame- port 1997), as well as at Kalaly < -gy
< r 2 (Vaĭnberg 2004:
work is well visible (i.e. the concavity of the eastern 25—both sites on “Left Bank Chorasmia”) and in the
plinth in ig. 3). V century b.c. manor of Dingil’dzhe (Vorob’eva 1973).
29. This must be veriied by excavating the plinth 33. Although gypsum mortar is essential for mon-
up to their bases that, as stated, was not entirely pos- umental-scale barrel vaulting, this does not seem to
sible during season 2014. The plan published here is apply to the case of the Central Monument (not compa-
based on the exposure of both plinths for a height of ca. rable to some Sasanid vaults built with the same tech-
3.5 m, which was enough for a preliminary new plan nique with a span of more than 25m—Reuther 1938:
due to the vertical nature of the walls. 500).
30. Not inspected in 2014. 34. The “pitched” bricks are laid in one direction
31. The standard trapezoidal mud-bricks of the only, southwards, and for their irst course they need to
vaults measure 40 × 28 × 22 cm. Trapezoidal bricks lie on a wall end (as irst noted by Choisy in 1883), an
are commonly used for vaulting in Ancient Chorasmia arch or a strip of centring. The debris of the collapsed
(Khozhaniyazov 2005: 110). roof must be identiied and studied in order to advance
32. The “pitched-brick” technique (not exclusively a proper architectonic reconstruction of the ediice.
to mud-brick masonry) in which the need of timber 35. Cf. Babyish-mullah 2, a funerary ediice in the
centring is almost completely eliminated, and that Syr-Darya delta area, inluenced by the Chorasmian
presents anti-seismic qualities, has a long tradition architecture (Tolstov 1962: pp. 165–70, 167 with ig.
and history that departs from the III millennium b.c. 92; for further architectonic considerations, see also
Mesopotamia (e.g. Tell al Rimah—Oates 1970, and Besenval 1984: 129). Its current dating between the IV
even before, see Oates 1973, 1990), II millennium Su- century b.c. and the II century b.c. is too high.
siana (e.g. Haft Tepe— Negahban 1991), Egypt and goes 36. A hint on the existence of the dome in Ancient
through Assyria (e.g. Neo-Assyrian Khorsabad—see Be- Chorasmian architecture may be seen in the architec-
senval 1984: 119, with pl. 149 c), Parthian and Sasanid tonic ossuaries, but this datum seems to point to the
Persia (Reuther 1938: 499–500; Kawami 1982), arriving ensuing period (III–V centuries a.d.—Rapoport 1971).
at the end of Antiquity in Justinian’s Constantinople 37. For a detailed consideration of the Choras-
(Ward-Perkins 1958), and beyond up to our day (Chris- mian facies, see Minardi forthcoming: 87–103 with
tensen 1967). For a general scrutiny on the technique, references.
see Choisy 1883: 31–43; Oates 1973 and 1990; Besen- 38. Cf. Kaparas (Itina 1991: 161); cf. with Toprak-
val 1984, in particular 42–46, 160–62. On Central Asia, kala (palace and settlement) where in the masonry
see Pugachenkova 1982. For Chorasmia, see Voronina ceramic tiles have been used instead (Nerazik and
1952. Examples of Achaemenid times are also known Rapoport 1981: pp. 46–47, with ig. 24); outside Chor-
(e.g. Lachish I, a stone vault—Wright 1985: 463 with asmia, cf. Khalchayan (mid I century a.d.—Pugachen-
references; for its chronology, see Fantalkin and Tal kova 1966: 78).
2006) proving that in these areas this technique has 39. The original setting of these column bases is yet
an interrupted tradition. Mud-brick “pitch” vaulting to be ascertained. The presence of vaulted roofs (the
was used in Elamite Susa (Besenval 1984: 107) but it is three “galleries” in a T-shaped deployment) and the
139
particular stone used for the column bases make one 51. In particular since the reign of Artaxerses II
wonder about an eventual decoration of the monument. (Boyce 1982: 209–84); for considerations on the devel-
40. The 2014 preliminary study of the visible struc- opment of the ire temple, see Boyce 1975; Stronach
tures indicates a contemporaneity of the complex parts. 1985; Betts and Yagodin 2008. On the debated matter
41. No traces of material from the roof were found regarding the religious monuments of Achaemenid
in the inside of this chamber (and the steps are quite Persia, see Boucharlat 1984 and 2010. On new data on
eroded). But this is also the case of the Ceremonial the development of Central Asian temples, see Rapin
Complex, deconstructed and abandoned in Antiquity forthcoming (contra Boyce 1975).
at the end of Stage 3. 52. Francovich 1966; Boyce 1982: 112–13.
42. The platform of the palace of Toprak-kala has 53. But a recent survey questioned the existence of
the shape of a truncated pyramid with a base of 92.5 m such enclosure (Boucharlat 2002).
and a top surface of 82 × 83 m. Its volume is equivalent 54. Stronach 1978: 139–44; 1985. For a recent new
to 183,600 cubic m. The number of bricks used in the hypothesis on the plinths, see Amiet 2013. Trümpel-
construction has been estimated to be equivalent to ca. mann (1977) has stressed the importance of the terrace
6 million of the size of 39.5/40 × 9/11 × 10 cm—Rapo- as place of worship. As noted by Boyce and Grenet
port and Nerazik 1984, TKhAEE 14: 21–22, 25–28. It is (1991: 150, 183), Kuh-i Khwaja seems an example of a
important to recall that this site, only 14 km distant post-Achaemenid Zoroastrian shrine built on natural
from Akchakhan-kala, was a new foundation built after high ground. See also Francovich (1966: 204–5) where a
the abandonment of Akchakhan-kala. Pasargadae-like monument has been hypothesised for
43. Note that at Akchakhan-kala, until now the Persepolis.
KAE failed to ind any trace of administrative activ- 55. On highland Elamite religious practices, see Ál-
ities, if not for a single bone inscribed in Chorasmo- varez-Mon 2013.
Aramaic with black ink, while the ceremonial aspects 56. E.g. the four-stepped tower of Altyn Tepe (III/
of the Ceremonial Complex are striking notwithstand- early II millennium b.c.) that, according to V. M. Mas-
ing its deconstruction and spoliation in Antiquity. son (1981), is reminiscent of the Mesopotamian ziggu-
44. A sounding beyond its western end did not reveal rats; and in north-eastern Iran Turing Tepe “a gigantic
characteristics belonging to a monumental staircase. structure” comparable with the Ur-Nammu (Deshayes
45. Leriche 1997, 1999; Arnaud 1997. Downey (2003) 1977). For further references on such structures in Cen-
uses the term “small sacred theaters.” One of these tral Asia, see Besenval and Francfort 1994. Another
rooms was actually a bouleuterion (Leriche 1999). See pre-Achaemenid complex must be also mentioned
also Downey 1988: 90–91, 99, 104–5. here, although relative to VI century b.c. Iran, i.e. the
46. Boyce 1979. platforms of Tepe Yahya (Kerman province—Lamberg-
47. Frye 1976. Karlovsky and Magee 1999; Magee 2004).
48. Excluding some large fragments of greenish 57. Bard-é Nechandeh/Bard-i Nishandeh was in its
bricks, evidently glazed by intense heat on one of their irst phase an artiicial platform framed by retaining
sides, found scattered on the surface of the site and at walls and accessible by stairways (Ghirshman 1976:
the bottom of the “room with steps” in a context of de- ig. 7); similarly the case of Masjed-i Solaiman (ibid.,
bris from the vaulted room between the western plinth ig. 26). For Bard-i Nishandeh Ghirshman actually pro-
and the same “room with steps.” These are probably posed a pre-Hellenistic “Phase I” ending around the
mud-bricks reused in some kiln after the abandonment mid II century b.c. (Ghirshman 1976: 39). For criticism
of the Central Monument and connected with some on Ghirshman’s interpretation of these “sacred ter-
late activity on site (Akchakhan-kala Area 11—the races” as Zoroastrian places of worship, see Boyce and
southern citadel—shows data regarding the later post- Grenet 1991: 43–48 with references.
abandonment occupation of the site). 58. Amy 1950; Downey 1976, 1988.
49. On the structures identiied as ire temples, see 59. Stronach and Roaf 2007.
Schippmann 1971. For further reference, integrations 60. Rapin 2007: 36–42.
and comments on this work, see Schlumberger 1972; 61. Rapin forthcoming: 20. For other Central Asian
Gignoux 1973; Bivar 1974; Frye 1976; Boyce 1979 and pre-Seleucid platforms with over-structures attested in
Boyce and Grenet 1991; on Surkh Kotal (Temple B) the Surkhan-Darya valley, see Boyce and Grenet 1991:
see Schlumberger, Le Berre and Fussman 1983. On 182–83 (Pachmak-tepe) and Boroffka 2009 (temple of
Takht-i Sangin, Litvinskiĭ and Pichikyan 2000; on Kindyk-tepe). For further references, see Martinez-Sève
the temples of Pendjikent and Sogdiana, see Škoda forthcoming.
1987; 1998a; 1998b. The question regarding the exis- 62. “The sacred function of the monument, prob-
tence of ire temples in Chorasmia has been recently ably related to early Zoroastrianism (or at least to a
addressed by Betts and Yagodin (2008) in relation to local cult afiliated to the Indo-Iranian complex), is
Tash-k’irman-tepe. conirmed by the evidence of a ritual of foundation per-
50. Hist. I. 132–33. formed just before its construction” (Rapin 2007: 38).
140
63. On the Koktepe platforms and their parallels, 74. Tolstov 1958: 75; Rapoport 1971: 70; Mambe-
see Rapin 2007 and Rapin forthcoming with references. tullaev 1990, 2011. According to Mambetullaev (2011),
Sangir-tepe IIIC is dated at the end of the Achaemenid this dating is relative to the function of the structure as
period (Rapin forthcoming). For further references on ire temple in its initial and main stage.
the Achaemenid expansion in Central Asia, see Briant 75. Mambetullaev 2011. It could have been a “ire
1984, 1996; relative to Chorasmia, see Minardi forth- holder” but it is very dificult to support this theory with
coming: 7–47 with references. the published data available. The presence of ossuary
64. Sulejmanov 1991, 2000; Boyce and Grenet 1991: burials in the site is connected with later post-abandon-
191–92. ment (unclear) phases of the structure. Cf. the Aibuiĭr-
65. On the funeral practice of Zoroastrian Central kala platform with the III–VI centuries a.d. Sogdian
Asia, see Grenet 1984. On Ancient Chorasmia’s reli- (Bukhara) site of Setalak 1 (Suleĭmanov 2000: 258–59).
gion as interpreted by the KhAEE, see Rapoport 1971. 76. Betts et al. 2009; Tolstov 1962: 104. The pres-
66. Boyce and Grenet 1991: 181–84 with references; ence of Antique pottery types on the site surface is con-
Bernard 2010: 49–52, with a picture of the sanctuary irmed by recent surveys (KAE).
at ig. 19. 77. Unexcavated, dificult to detect on the terrain
67. Schlumberger, Le Berre and Fussman 1983: and not visible from recent satellite images due to the
75–81. The Surkh Kotal complex brings to mind also poor preservation state of the area. See, Tolstov 1948a:
other—and preceding—examples of sanctuary on ter- p. 112, ig. 47; 1948b: p. 113, ig. 25. Other Choras-
races, i.e. Greek complexes such as the Asklepieion of mian sites characterised by mud-brick ramps are Late
Kos and Hellenistic Pergamon, models later developed Antique Ayaz-kala 2 and Dzhil’d’ik-kala (I–IV a.d—
in Italy in Republican times (e.g. the sanctuary of For- Tolstov 1948a: ig. 56). If the latter is probably only
tuna at Palestrina). On its cultural signiicance, see also a stronghold dissimilar to the Central Monument of
Fussman 1977. Akchakhan-kala, on the other hand the irst site pres-
68. As principally attested by the royal inscriptions ents a very steep ramp that connects a “lower palace”
DB, DSe, DPe, DNa and XPh; and by the captions re- with an isolated high-ground place, close to the sites of
garding the “nations” submitted by the kings of kings Ayaz-kala 1 (a gorodishche with no inner structures),
on their royal tombs: DNe and A2Pa. For further de- and Ayaz-kala 3 (a gorodishche with an administrative
tails, see Minardi forthcoming: 8–22. unit—on the excavation of this site, see Bolelov 1998).
69. Vishnevskaya and Rapoport 1997. This is only a The “lower palace” presents a central chamber illed
preliminary report with scanty data, which only gives with layers of sand and bricks that closely recalls the
an outline of the site. deconsecration of the Tash-k’irman Fire Temple (Betts
70. Vishnevskaya and Rapoport 1997: ig. 3 (= Mi- and Minardi personal observation).
nardi forthcoming: ig. 5 B). 78. Itina 1991; Levina 2001; for a recent analysis, see
71. Rapin 2007: 39. But no Zoroastrian orthodox Bongard-Levin and Košelenko 2005 and Minardi forth-
would have been doing such a thing—Boyce 1975: 460. coming: 103–12.
Cf. “Late Achaemenid” Sangir-tepe III C (Rapin forth- 79. The “Western Building” had two construction
coming: 20). stages: the earliest one characterized by the use of pa-
72. Even if considered just as stepped altars, these khsa blocks for the foundations of the walls completed
Kyuzeli-gy < r structures are the earliest attestation of at a certain height by mud-bricks (cf. Koĭ-Kry < lgan-kala,
such kind in Chorasmia. In addition the foundation of Akchakhan-kala, Kalaly < -gy
< r 1, etc.); the second charac-
the gorodishche has to be linked with the Achaemenid terised instead by the use of mud-bricks directly laid on
expedition in Central Asia (Minardi forthcoming). Cf. a pebble substructure.
Strabo XI. 8. 4: the Sacae “when they were holding a 80. On the Mausoleum, see Bernard 1972; on
general festival and enjoying their booty, they were at- Dal’verzintepe, Pugachenkova 1978: 97–113; see also
tacked by night by the Persian generals who were then Grenet 1984: 96–98 who compared the two structures
in that region and utterly wiped out. And these gener- (with reference to Bernard 1980). Note that the vaulted
als, heaping up a mound of earth over a certain rock in structure of Hellenistic Ai-Khanoum are not “pitched,”
the plain, completed it in the form of a hill, and erected while the Dal’verzintepe ones are so, likewise the
on it a wall, and established the temple of Anaitis and vaults of Chorasmia including those of Elkharas (supra
the gods who share their altar—Omanus and Anadatus, note 32).
Persian deities; and they instituted an annual sacred 81. See Minardi 2013 and forthcoming.
festival, the Sacaea, which the inhabitants of Zela (for 82. See for instance Downey’s catalogue of religious
thus the place is called) continue to celebrate to the ediices (Downey 1988). On the Mesopotamian ele-
present day. It is a small city belonging for the most ments in Bactrian architecture, see Bernard 1976; on
part to the temple slaves.” the Iranian religious cultic elements in Central Asia
73. Although in Chorasmia there is no architectonic and Iran during the Hellenistic period, see Martinez-
standard and the local variation seems the norm. Sève forthcoming with references.
141
83. Schlumberger, Le Berre and Fussman 1983: 92. Bernard 1976 . “Les traditions orien-
Cf. supra note 67. tales dans l’architecture gréco-
84. Rapin 1992. bactrienne.” JA 264: 245–75.
85. If we want to include in this pattern Building V Bernard 1980 . “Une nouvelle con-
of the external compound of Toprak-kala (Rapoport tribution soviétique à l’histoire
1993). des Kushans: La fouille de
86. Arnaud 1997. Dal’verzin-tépé (Uzbékistan).”
87. Betts et al. 2009. BEFEO 68: 313–48.
88. Cf. Boyce 1975: 457. Bernard 2010 . “La découverte et la
89. Zoroastrian ceremonies such as the Nowrūz fouilles du site hellénistique
(the New Year festival) that might be related to the d’Aï Khanoum en Afghanistan:
Akchakhan-kala wall paintings (the “procession,” Kidd Comment elles se sont faites.”
et al. 2008) and to the spatial conception of the Cer- Parthica 11: 33–56.
emonial Complex as hinted by Grenet (2010). On the Bernard and Grenet P. Bernard and F. Grenet,
Zoroastrian Chorasmian festivals, see Biruni (by Sa- 1991 eds. Histoire et cultes de
chau): 223–30. l’Asie centrale préislamique:
Sources écrites et documents
archéologiques. Actes du Col-
loque international du CNRS
References (Paris, 22–28 Novembre 1988).
Paris.
Álvarez-Mon 2013 J. Álvarez-Mon.“Braids of Glory: Besenval 1984 R. Besenval. Technologie de la
Elamite Sculptural Reliefs from voûte dans l’Orient Ancien.
the Highlands. Kūl-e Farah IV.” 2 vols. Paris.
In Susa and Elam: Archaeolog- Besenval and R. Besenval and H.-P. Francfort.
ical, Philological, Historical Francfort 1994 “The Nad-i Ali ‘Surkh Dagh’:
and Geographical Perspectives. A Bronze Age Monumental
Proceedings of the International Platform in Central Asia?”
Congress Held at Ghent Uni- In From Sumer to Meluhha:
versity, December 14–17, 2009, Contributions to the Archaeol-
ed. K. De Graef and J. Tavernier, ogy of South and West Asia in
207–48. Boston. Memory of George F. Dales, Jr.,
Amiet 2010 P. Amiet. “Le palais de ed. J. M. Kenoyer, 3–14. Wis-
Darius à Suse: Problèmes et consin Archaeological Reports,
hypothèses.” Achaemenid vol. 3. Madison.
Research on Texts and Archae- Betts and Yagodin A. V. G. Betts and V. N.
ology 2010.1: 1–13. 2008 Yagodin. “The Tash-k’irman-
Amiet 2013 . “À Pasargades: tepe Cult Complex: An Hy-
Autels du feu ou soubasse- pothesis for the Establishment
ments de tours?” Achaemenid of Fire Temples in Ancient
Research on Texts and Archae- Chorasmia.” In Art, Architec-
ology 2013.1: 1–8. ture and Religion along the Silk
Amy 1950 R. Amy. “Temples à escaliers.” Roads, ed. K. Parry, 1–19. Silk
Syria 27: 82–136. Road Studies 12. Turnhout.
Arnaud 1997 P. Arnaud. “Les salles Betts et al. 2009 A. V. G. Betts, V. N. Yagodin,
W9 et W10 du temple S. W. Helms, G. Khozhaniyazov,
d’Azzanathkona á Doura-Euro- Sh. Amirov and M. Negus
pos: Développement historique Cleary. “Karakalpak-Australian
et topographie familiale d’une Excavations in Ancient Cho-
‘salle aux gradins.’ ” In Doura- rasmia, 2001–2005: Interim
Europos: Études IV 1991–1993, Report on the Fortiications of
ed. P. Leriche and M. Gélin, Kazakl’i-yatkan and Regional
117–43. Beyrouth. Survey.” Iran 47: 33–55.
Bernard 1972 P. Bernard. “Campagne des Betts et al. A. V. G. Betts, F. Grenet,
fouilles à Aï Khanoum (Af- forthcoming V. N. Yagodin, F. Kidd, M. Mi-
ghanistan).” CRAI, 605–32. nardi, M. Bonnat and S. Kashi-
142
mov. “The Akchakhan-kala Briant 1984 P. Briant. L’Asie centrale et les

Wall Paintings: New Perspec- royaumes proche-orientaux du
tives on Kingship and Reli- premier millénaire (c. VIIIe–IVe
gion in Ancient Chorasmia.” siècles avant notre ère). Paris.
Journal of Inner Asia Art and Briant 1996 . Histoires de
Archaeology. l’empire perse de Cyrus á Alex-
Bivar 1974 A. D. H. Bivar. Review of Die andre. Achaemenid History 10.
iranischen Feuerheiligtümer 2 vols. Leiden.
by Klaus Schippmann. BSOAS Choisy 1883 A. Choisy. L’art de bâtir chez
37.1: 233–34. les Byzantines. Paris.
Bolelov 1998 S. B. Bolelov. “Krepost‘ Ayaz- Christensen 1967 N. Christensen. “Haustypen
kala 3 v pravoberezhnom und Gehöftbildung in West-
Khorezme.” In Priaral’e v persien.” Anthropos 62.1–2:
drevnosti i srednevekov’e, ed. 89–138.
E. E. Nerazik and L. S. Ei- Deshayes 1977 J. Deshayes. “À propos des ter-
mova, 116–35. Moscow. rasses hautes de la in du IIIe
Bongard-Levin and G. M. Bongard-Levin and millénaire en Iran et en Asie
Košelenko 2005 G. A. Košelenko. “The Puzzle Centrale.” In Le Plateau iranien
of Elkharas.” EW 55: 41–53. et l’Asie Centrale, des origines
Boroffka 2009 N. Boroffka. “Siedlungsge- à la conquête islamique: Leurs
schichte in Nordbak- relations à la lumière des docu-
trien—Bandichan zwischen ments archéologiques, ed. J.
Spätbronzezeit und Frühmittel- Deshayes, 95–112. Paris.
alter.” In Alexander der Große Downey 1976 S. B. Downey. “Temples à
und die Öffnung der Welt: escaliers: The Dura Evidence.”
Asiens Kulturen im Wandel, ed. California Studies in Classical
S. Hansen, A. Wieczorek and M. Antiquity 9: 21–39.
Tellenbach, 135–53. Mannheim. Downey 1988 . Mesopotamian Reli-
Boucharlat 1984 R. Boucharlat. “Monuments re- gious Architecture. Princeton.
ligieux de la Perse achéménide, Downey 2003 . Terracotta Figurines
état des questions.” In Temples and Plaques from Dura-Euro-
et sanctuaires: Séminaire de pos. Ann Arbor.
recherche 1981–1983, ed. G. Fantalkin and Tal A. Fantalkin and O. Tal.
Roux, 119–35. Lyon. 2006 “Redating Lachish Level I:
Boucharlat 2002 . “Pasargadae.” Iran Identifying Achaemenid Impe-
40: 279–82. rial Policy at the Southern
Boucharlat 2010 . “La question des Frontier of the Fifth Satrapy.”
temples perses.” In Le palais In Judah and the Judeans in
de Darius à Suse (Iran): Une the Persian Period: Negotiating
résidence royale sur la route Identity in an International
de Persépolis à Babylone, ed. Context, ed. O. Lipschits, G. N.
J. Perrot, 412–19. Paris. Knoppers and M. Oeming,
Boyce 1975 M. Boyce. “On the Zoroastrian 167–97. Winona Lake, Ind.
Temple Cult of Fire.” JAOS Francovich 1966 G. de Francovich. “Problems of
95.3: 454–65. Achaemenid Architecture.” EW
Boyce 1979 . Zoroastrians: Their 16: 201–60.
Religious Beliefs and Practices. Frye 1976 R. N. Frye. Review of Die
London. iranischen Feuerheiligtümer by
Boyce 1982 . A History of Zoro- Klaus Schippmann. JNES 35.3:
astrianism. Vol. 2, Under the 201–2.
Achaemenids. Leiden. Fussman 1977 G. Fussman. “Le renouveau ira-
Boyce and Grenet M. Boyce and F. Grenet. A nien dans l’empire Kouchan.”
1991 History of Zoroastrianism. In Le Plateau iranien et l’Asie
Vol. 3, Zoroastrianism under Centrale, des origines à la
Macedonian and Roman Rule. conquête islamique: Leurs
Leiden. relations à la lumière des
143
documents archéologiques, ed. Antecedents and Descen-

J. Deshayes, 313–22. Paris. dants.” Journal of the Ancient
Ghirshman 1976 R. Ghirshman. Terrasses Near East Society 14: 61–67.
sacrées de Bard-è Néchandeh Khozhaniyazov 2005 G. Khozhaniyazov. The Mili-
et Masjid-i Solaiman: L’Iran tary Architecture of Ancient
du sud-ouest du VIIIe s. av. n. Chorasmia (6th century B.C.–
ère au Ve s. de n. ère. Vols. 1–2. 4th century A.D.): Translated,
MDAI 45. Paris. edited and emended by Svend
Gignoux 1973 P. Gignoux. Review of Die Helms with a contribution by
iranischen Feuerheiligtümer by A.V. G. Betts. University of
Klaus Schippmann. Revue de Sydney Central Asian Pro-
l’histoire des religions 184.2: gramme. Persika 7. Paris.
211–13. Kidd 2011 F. Kidd. “Complex Connec-
Grenet 1984 F. Grenet. Les pratiques tions: Figurative Art from
funéraires dans l’Asie centrale Akchankhan-kala and the
sédentaire de la conquête Problematic Question of
grecque à l’islamisation. Paris. Relations between Khorezm
Grenet 1987 . F. Grenet, ed. Cultes and Parthia.” Topoi 17.1:
et monuments religieux dans 229–76.
l’Asie centrale préislamique. Kidd and Betts 2010 F. Kidd and A. V. G. Betts.
Paris. “Entre le leuve et la steppe:
Grenet 2010 . “Quelques données Nouvelles perspectives sur
peu exploitées sur le proto- le Khorezm ancien.” CRAI,
cole royal dans l’Iran et l’Asie 637–86.
centrale préislamiques.” In Kidd et al. 2008 F. Kidd, M. Negus Cleary, V. N.
Traditsii vostoka i zapada v Yagodin, A. Betts and E. Baker
antichnoĭ kul’ture sredneĭ azii: Brite. “Ancient Chorasmian
Sbornik stateĭv chest’ Polya Mural Art.” BAI 18, 2008
Bernara, ed. K. Abdullaev, [2004]: 69–95.
122–30. Tashkent. Lamberg-Karlovsky C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky and
Helms and Yagodin S. W. Helms and V. N. and Magee 1999 P. Magee. “The Iron Age Plat-
1997 Yagodin. “Excavations at forms at Tepe Yahya.” IA 33:
Kazakl’i-yatkan in the Tash- 41–52.
k’irman Oasis of Ancient Cho- Leriche 1997 P. Leriche. “Matériaux pour
rasmia: A Preliminary Report.” une rélexion renouvelée sur
Iran 35: 43–65. les sanctuaires de Doura-Euro-
Helms et al. 2001 S. W. Helms, V. N. Yagodin, pos.” Topoi 7.2: 889–913.
A. V. G. Betts, G. Khozhani- Leriche 1999 . “Salle à gradins du
yazov and F. Kidd. “Five temple d’Artémis à Doura-
Seasons of Excavations in the Europos.” Topoi 9: 719–39.
Tash-k’irman Oasis of Ancient Levina 2001 L. M. Levina.
Chorasmia, 1996–2000: An In- Drevnekhorezmiĭskiĭ pamyat-
terim Report.” Iran 39: 119–44. nik Elkharas. Moscow.
Helms et al. 2002 S. W. Helms, V. N. Yagodin, Litvinskiĭ, and B. A. Litvinskiĭ and I. R.
A.V. G. Betts, G. Khozhani- Pichikyan 2000 Pichikyan. Éllinisticheskiĭ
yazov and M. Negus Cleary. Khram Oksa v Baktrii
“The Karakalpak-Australian (Yuzhny$ ĭ Tadzhikistan).
excavations in Ancient Choras- Tom 1, Raskopki, Arkhitek-
mia: The Northern Frontier of tura. Religioznaya zhizn’.
the ‘Civilised’ Ancient World.” Moscow.
Ancient Near Eastern Studies Magee 2004 P. Magee. Excavations at Tepe
39: 3–44. Yahya, Iran 1967–1975: The
Itina 1991 M. A. Itina. Drevnosti Yuzh- Iron Age Settlement. Cam-
nogo Khorezma. TKhAEE 16. bridge Mass.
Moscow. Mambetullaev 1990 M. M. Mambetullaev. “Goro-
Kawami 1982 T. S. Kawami. “Parthian Brick dishche Bol’shaya Aibuiĭr-kala
Vaults in Mesopotamia, Their (raskopki 1976–1977 i 1981
144
gg.).” Arkheologiya Priaral’ya Pugachenkova 1982 G. A. Pugachenkova. “Sur la

4: 91–119. typologie de l’architecture
Mambetullaev 2011 . “Issledovaniya khra- monumentale des anciens pays
movogo kompleksa Bol’shaya de l’Asie Centrale.” IA 17:
Aĭbuĭir-kala.” Arkheologiya 21–42.
uzbekistana 1.2: 52–61. Rapin 1992 C. Rapin. “Les sanctuaires
Martinez-Sève L. Martinez-Sève. “Les de l’Asie Centrale à l’époque
forthcoming sanctuaires autochtones dans hellénistique: État de la ques-
le monde iranien d’époque tion.” Études de Lettres 4:
hellénistique: Un problème de 101–24.
déinition.” Topoi 19. Rapin 2007 . “Nomads and
Masson 1981 V. M. Masson. Altyn-tepe. the Shaping of Central Asia
TKhAEE 18. Leningrad. (from the Early Iron Age to
Minardi 2013 M. Minardi. “A Four Armed the Kushan Period). In After
Goddess from Ancient Choras- Alexander: Central Asia before
mia: History, Iconography and Islam, ed. J. Cribb and G. Herr-
Style of an Ancient Choras- mann, 29–72. Oxford.
mian Icon.” Iran 51: 111–43. Rapin forthcoming . “Sanctuaires zo-
Minardi forthcoming . Ancient Choras- roastriens sogdiens de Gava
mia: A Polity between the à l’époque hellénistique
Semi-Nomadic and Sedentary (Koktepe et Sangir-tepe).”
Cultural Areas of Central In Colloque Paris, 2013: La
Asia. Cultural Interactions religion des Achéménides.
and Local Developments from Confrontation des sources.
the Sixth Century BC to the Colloque international 7 et
First Century AD. ActIr 56. 8 novembre 2013, Collège de
Leuven. France-Societas Iranologica
Negahban 1991 E. O. Negahban. Excavations at Europaea.
Haft Tepe, Iran. Philadelphia. Rapoport 1971 Yu. A. Rapoport. Iz istorii
Nerazik and E. E. Nerazik and Yu. A. religii Drevnego Khorezma (os-
Rapoport 1981 Rapoport. Gorodishche Toprak- suarii). TKhAEE 6. Moscow.
Kala (raskopki 1965–1975 gg.). Rapoport 1993 . “Zagorodny< e
TKhAEE 12. Moscow. dvortsy < i khramy< Toprak-kaly< .”
Oates 1970 D. Oates. “The Excavations at VDI 4: 161–86.
Tell al Rimah, 1968.” Iraq 32.1: Reuther 1938 O. Reuther. “Sasanian Archi-
1–26. tecture.” In SPA. Vol. 1, Pre-
Oates 1973 . “Early Vaulting in Achaemenid, Achaemenid and
Mesopotamia.” In Archaeolog- Parthian Periods.
ical Theory and Practice, ed. Schippmann 1971 K. Schippmann. Die iranischen
D. E. Strong. London. Feuerheiligtümer. Berlin.
Oates 1990 . “Innovations in Schlumberger 1972 D. Schlumberger. Review
Mud-brick: Decorative and of Die iranischen Feuer-
Structural Techniques in heiligtümer by Klaus
Ancient Mesopotamia.” World Schippmann. Syria 49.1–2:
Archaeology 21.3: 388–406. 257–58.
Perrot 2010 J. Perrot. “Restauration, Re- Schlumberger, D. Schlumberger, M. Le Berre
constitution.” In Le palais de Le Berre and and G. Fussman. Surkh Kotal
Darius à Suse: Une résidence Fussman 1983 en Bactriane. Vol. 1, Les
royale sur la route de Persépo- temples: Architecture, sculp-
lis à Babylone, 224–55. Paris. ture, inscriptions. 2 vols.
Pugachenkova 1966 . Khalchayan: K MDAFA 25. Paris.
probleme khudozhestvennoĭ Škoda 1987 V. G. Škoda. “Le culte du
kul’tury$ severnoĭ Baktrii. feu dans les sanctuaires de
Tashkent. Pendzhikent.” In Cultes et
Pugachenkova 1978 . Dal’verzintepe monuments religieux dans
kushanskiĭ gorod na yuge Uz- l’Asie centrale préislamique,
bekistana. Tashkent. ed. F. Grenet, 63–72. Paris.
145
Škoda 1998a . “The Sogdian icheskie raboty$ Khorezmskoĭ

Temple: Structure and Ritu- ékspeditsii 1949–1953 gg.,
als.” BAI 10, 1998 [1996]: ed. S. P. Tolstov and T. A.
195–206. Zhdanko, 7–258. TKhAEE 2.
Škoda 1998b . “Iranian Traditions Moscow.
in Sogdian Temple Architec- Tolstov 1962 . Po drevnim deltam
ture.” In The Art and Archae- Oksa i Yaksarta. Moscow.
ology of Ancient Persia: New Tolstov and S. P. Tolstov and B. I. Vaĭnberg.
Light on the Parthian and Vaĭnberg 1967 Koĭ-Kry$ lgan-kala—pamyatnik
Sasanian Empires, ed. V. S. kul’tury$ drevnego Khorezma
Curtis, R. Hillenbrand and IV v. do n.é.–IV v. n.é. TKhAEE
J. M. Rogers, 122–32. London. 5. Moscow.
Stronach 1978 D. Stronach. Pasargadae: A Re- Trümpelmann 1977 L. Trümpelmann. “Das Heilig-
port on the Excavations Con- tum von Pasargadae.” StIr 6:
ducted by the British Institute 7–16.
of Persian Studies from 1961 to Vaĭnberg 2004 B. I. Vaĭnberg. Kalaly$ -gy$ r 2:
1963. Oxford. Kul‘tovy$ ĭ tsentr v Drevnem
Stronach 1985 . “On the Evolution of Khorezme IV–II vv. do n.é.
the Early Iranian Fire Temple.” Moscow.
In Papers in Honour of Profes- Vishnevskaya and O. A. Vishnevskaya, and
sor Mary Boyce, 605–27. ActIr Rapoport 1997 Yu. A. Rapoport. “Drevnie
11. Leiden. tsivilizatsii: novy< e otkry< tiya:
Stronach and Roaf D. Stronach and M. Roaf. Gorodishche Kyuzeli-gy < r. K
2007 Nush-i Jan I: The Major Build- voprosu o rannem étape istorii
ings of the Median Settlement: Khorezma.” VDI 2: 152–73.
Leiden. Vorob’eva 1973 M. G. Vorob’eva. Dingil’dzhe
Suleĭmanov 1991 R. Kh. Suleĭmanov [R. X. usad’ba serediny$ i
Sulejmanov]. “L’architecture ty$ syacheletiya do n. é. v
monumentale d’Erkurgan: drevnem Khorezme. Materialy$
Complexes cultuels et com- Khorezmskoĭ ékspeditsii AN
munautaires.” In Histoire SSSR 10. Moscow.
et cultes de l’Asie Centrale Voronina 1952 V. L. Voronina. “Stroitel’naya
préislamique: Sources écrites tekhnika drevnego Khorezma.”
et documents archéologiques, In Arkheologicheskie i étnogra-
ed. P. Bernard and F. Grenet, icheskie raboty$ Khorezmskoĭ
167–73. Paris. ékspeditsii 1945–1948 gg.,
Suleĭmanov 2000 . Drevniĭ Nakhshab. ed. S. P. Tolstov and T. A.
Problemy$ tsivilizatsii Uzbeki- Zhdanko, 87–104. TKhAEE 1.
stana VII v. do n. é. Tashkent. Moscow.
Tolstov 1948a S. P. Tolstov. Drevniĭ Khorezm. Ward-Perkins 1958 J. B. Ward-Perkins. “Notes on
Moscow. the Structure and Building
Tolstov 1948b . Po sledam Methods of Early Byzantine
drevnekhorezmiĭskoĭ tsivili- Architecture.” In The Great
zatsii. Moscow. Palace of the Byzantine Emper-
Tolstov 1958 . “Raboty< ors, ed. D. Talbot Rice, vol. 2,
Khorezmskoĭ arkheologo- pp. 52–104. Edinburgh.
étnograicheskoĭ ékspeditsii Wright 1985 G. R. H. Wright. Ancient
AN SSSR v 1949–1953 gg.” In Building in South Syria and
Arkheologicheskie i étnogra- Palestine. Leiden.
146

The Central Monument of Akchakhan Kala F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Central Monument of Akchakhan Kala F

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Central Monument of Akchakhan Kala F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bulletin of the Asia Institute

Published with the assistance of the Neil Kreitman Foundation (U.K.)

Books Received 191

Color plates including images from Nicholas Sims-Williams

Introduction part of Turkmenistan, district of Daşoguz (ig. 1).

Fig. 2. General plan of Akchakhan-kala (KAE).

Fig. 3. General plan of the Central Monument of Akchakhan-kala as surveyed in 2014.

Fig. 4. Preliminary sections of the Central Monument.

Fig. 5. Shaded relief and contour maps of Area 07.

Fig. 7. General view of the Central Monument from the south-east.

Fig. 9. The eastern plinth from the north-east.

mov. “The Akchakhan-kala Briant 1984 P. Briant. L’Asie centrale et les

documents archéologiques, ed. Antecedents and Descen-

gg.).” Arkheologiya Priaral’ya Pugachenkova 1982 G. A. Pugachenkova. “Sur la

Škoda 1998a . “The Sogdian icheskie raboty$ Khorezmskoĭ

You might also like