A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set. Группа авторов
Achaemenids did not impose a centralized religion, as the presence of varied types of monuments illustrates. According to Herodotus I, 131–132, and Strabo XV, 3, the most ancient rituals were practiced in the open air. This statement could correspond to sacred platforms whose tradition goes back to the Bronze Age (Nad‐i Ali in Seistan) before a renewal at a more modest level during the Iron Age in the northeastern regions (Erk‐kala in Margiana, and Koktepe, Sangir‐tepe, Pachmak‐tepe, and Pshak‐tepe in Sogdiana). This architectural tradition lasted beyond the Achaemenids, as evidenced by the Hellenistic sacred platform and the stepped podiums on which stand the two main temples of Ai Khanum.
The existence of complex altars devoted to open‐air rituals in courtyard sanctuaries like at Dahan‐i Ghulaman is however not proved to the north of the Hindukush, although such a structure is not excluded for the unexcavated sanctuary of Cheshme‐Shafa to the south of Bactra. In Chorasmia, the worship in the open air seems to have occurred in two circular sanctuaries (Kalaly‐gyr 2 and Gjaur‐kala 3). More to the east, it is not clear in what measure the Saka Haumavarga (in Ustrushana?) associated Zoroastrianism to their nomadic kurgan funeral practices.
It is usually considered that the covered temples (intended to house cult statues) appeared rather late in the Achaemenid period, perhaps even during the Seleucid period. Recent discoveries reveal, however, that in Central Asia both open‐air and covered architectural types broadly coexisted already from the early decades of the Achaemenid rule. A covered temple at Sangir‐tepe (period III, earlier phase) seems indeed to coexist with the sacred platform in Koktepe (period III: Figure 23.2C. The temple of Sangir‐tepe was later replaced by a platform, whilst in the Surkhan‐darya other covered temples were erected during the fourth century BCE (Kuchuk‐tepe(?) and Kindyk‐tepe near Bandykhan). It is not excluded that the Oxus treasure (infra) belonged to a similar temple.
The Graeco‐Bactrian covered temples comprise a cella surrounded by sacristies and preceded by a porch or a pronaos. Since it appears rather late in Persia (see the Seleucid Frataraka temple at Persepolis), this scheme could derive from local early Achaemenid buildings (see Sangir‐tepe in Sogdiana). It is therefore not clear whether the ancient Mesopotamian area (see the sanctuary of Anu‐Antum of the Bit‐resh at Uruk) played a role in its development. A significant difference must be noted between the Mesopotamian and the Iranian worlds, since in the first case the lateral sacristies open on the pronaos (Bard‐e Neshandeh and Masjid‐e Solaiman), while in Central Asia they communicated directly with the cella. In this context, it means that the sacred treasure belonged somehow exclusively to the divinity.
While during the first centuries they were aniconic and addressed to the natural elements like fire and water, the Central Asian Zoroastrian cults progressed into an iconic polytheism which later differed from the proper Parthian and Sasanian aniconic cults of fire.
The scarce traces left by the earlier rituals are usually compatible with Zoroastrian features. Some of them correspond to rituals performed during the foundation of the sanctuaries (Koktepe and Sangir‐tepe), while others evidence a worship centered on the natural elements (Sangir‐tepe and Kindyk‐tepe). The oldest iconic representations are known through the treasures of Mir‐Zakah 2, of the Oxus, and of Takht‐i Sangin. These treasures include Achaemenid, Hellenistic, and nomadic pieces of art such as statuettes, vases, bracelets, necklaces, rings, gems, votive plaques depicting Zoroastrian priests, donors, and animals dedicated to a temple and coins. The original context or dating of the Oxus treasure are the source of conflicting interpretations, but it can be considered that these objects were part of votive deposits sheltered in a monument which was replaced by the temple of Takht‐i Sangin during the Graeco‐Bactrian period.
Under the Graeco‐Bactrian rule the Central Asian cults present a polytheist form whose divinities are iconographically Hellenized (Takht‐i Sangin, Ai Khanum), while the sanctuaries are closely connected to the Achaemenid period through the artifacts of their sacred treasures. The Oxus river divinity was worshiped in Takht‐i Sangin before the transformation of part of the temple in a “fire‐temple” of Parthian‐Sasanian tradition. The main divinity worshiped in Ai Khanum, in the temple with indented niches, at a distance of 100 km from the Oxus, seems to have been rather a Zeus‐Mithra or Zeus‐Belos (hypothesis of Frantz Grenet). The common ground is enhanced by the discovery at Ai Khanum and Takht‐i Sangin of two identical plaques illustrating Cybele associated to a ritual on a stepped altar raised on rocky ground which evokes also the traditional rituals on stepped platforms.
In conclusion, it appears that the intrusion of the Achaemenid power had no fundamental effects on Central Asian cultural life. Part of the transformations observed during this period results from a local evolution which began during the formative period of the Iron Age and continued long after the collapse of the empire. In this general context, marked by a slow evolution of cultural traditions, the appearance of innovative elements in pottery does not immediately follow political changes. The objects related to the royal administration and to the aulic Persian art are limited to the treasuries, but the main impact of the real power of the Achaemenians can be identified through the best dated examples of monumental architecture, that is the palaces and sanctuaries.
REFERENCES
1 Briant, P. (2020). Bactria in the Achaemenid Empire. The Achaemenid Central State in Bactria (again). In R.E. Payne, R. King (eds.), The Limits of Empire in Ancient Afghanistan: Rule and Resistance in the Hindu Kush, circa 600 BCE – 600 CE. Classica et Orientalia 24, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 21–44.
2 Francfort, H.‐P. (2005). Asie centrale. In P. Briant, R. Boucharlat (eds.), L’archéologie de l’empire achéménide. Paris: De Boccard, pp. 313–352.
3 Francfort, H.‐P. (2013). L’art oublié des lapidaires de la Bactriane aux époques achéménide et hellénistique, Persika 17. Paris: De Boccard.
4 Francfort, H.‐P., Lecomte, O. (2002). Irrigation et société en Asie centrale des origines à l’époque achéménide. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 57 3, pp. 625–663.
5 Grenet, F. (2005). An archaeologist's approach to Avestan geography. In V.S. Curtis, S. Stewart (eds.), Birth of the Persian Empire, The Idea of Iran 1. London: I.B. Tauris, pp. 29–51.
6 Kidd, F., Betts, A.V. (2010). Entre le fleuve et la steppe: nouvelles perspectives sur le Khorezm ancien. Comptes Rendus des Seances de la Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, pp. 637–686.
7 Koshelenko, G.A. (ed.) (1985). Drevneishie gosudarstva Kavkaza i Srednei Azii [The most ancient states of the Caucasus and Central Asia]. Moscow: Nauka.
8 Lecomte, O. (2013). Activités archéologiques françaises au Turkménistan. In J. Bendezu‐Sarmiento (ed.), L’archéologie française en Asie centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 21–22, Paris, Bichkek, Kaboul: de Boccard, pp. 165–190.
9 Lo Muzio, C. (2017). Archeologia dell’Asia centrale preislamica. Dall’età del Bronzo al IX secolo d.C. Milano: Mondadori Università.
10 Lyonnet, B. (1997). Céramique et peuplement du chalcolithique à la conquête arabe, Prospections archéologiques en Bactriane orientale [1974–1978] 2; Mémoires de la Mission archéologique française en Asie centrale 8. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
11 Minardi, M. (2015). Ancient Chorasmia. A Polity between the Semi‐nomadic and Sedentary Cultural Areas of Central Asia: Cultural Interactions and Local Developments from the Sixth Century BC to the first century AD, Acta Iranica 56. Louvain: Peeters.
12 Naveh J., Shaked Sh. (eds.) (2012). Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria (Fourth Century BCE) from the Khalili Collection. London: The Khalili Family Trust.
13 Rapin, C. (2018). On the way to Roxane 2: satraps and hyparchs between Bactra and Zariaspa‐Maracanda. In J. Lhuillier and N. Boroffka (eds.), A Millennium of History: The Iron Age in Central Asia (2nd and 1st Millennia BC), Archäologie in Iran und Turan 16. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern, 2017, Paris, Bichkek, Kaboul: De Boccard, pp. 257–298.
14 Rapin,