"The Central Asian dimension of the
symbolic system in Bactria and Margiana", Antiquity,
Antiquity 68 (1994):406-18
Abstract: The Bronze Age civilization of Bactria and Margiana emgerged
after 2500 BC from the local cultures represneted at the sites of
Sarazm, Mundigak, and Shar-i Sokhta, incorporating elements from
Turkmenia (especiallyl in Margiana). from the Indus (pottery technques
and some iconographic traits) and from Iran through the Proto-Elamite
past and by an Elamite influx (techniques, parts of iconography and
mythology), but also incorporating old Central Asia features connected
with Inner Asia.
This civilization fourished in Central, in the Oxus basin 2300-1800
BC (Francfort 1984; Francfort et all. 1989; Hiebert 1993), in the deltas
of the Murghab and Balkhab Rivers. It expanded to Uzbekistan, to eastern
Iran and into Baluchistan (Santoni 1984; 1988; Jarrige & Hassan 1989;
During-Caspers 1992; Hiebert & Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992), and Seistan
(Besenval & Francfort in press), merging with the piedmont Namazga V at
the Kelleli and ancient Gonur oasis of Margiana. At a later phase
(Namazga VI or Mollali) 1800-1500 BC, it penetrated into Tadjikistan
(works of P'yankova and Vinogradova) and northeast Afghanistan and
reoccupied partially the abandoned cities of Turkmenia (Francfort 1981).
Contemporary with the (late) Namazga V of Turkmenia, with the Indus
Harappan and the Iranian Elamite civilizations, it is chronologically
close to the supposed 'coming of the Aryans' from Central Aisa or Syria
to India.
Usually, the iconographic mythological elements known from the Oxus
Civilization are analysed and interpreted by a framework of Indo-Iranian
(Sarianidi works in references), Aryan (Parpola 1993), Iranian (Pottier
1981; 1984; Azarpay 1992) or Elamite terminology (Amiet 1986).
But the present approach is structuralist and therefore refrains from
bestowing Zoroastrian or Elamite names on deities or devils.
Structuralism is out of fashion but certainly not outdated in a case
like the Oxus Civilization iconography. Here the representations are
taken as a whole set, in spite of their chronological dispersion, or the
uncertainty of their origins from unstratified or approximately dated
contexts. The relations between the iconographic elements are the
primary focus, since no textual or oral tradition exists to deinfe the
nature of the various elements. synchrony and sets of relations between
discrete elements are basic to the structuralist approach in art
history, as exemplified by the studies of Palaeolithic art by
Laming-Emperaire and Leroi-Gourhan (for a fair account in English of the
structural analysis in ancient art see Conkey 1989).
This approach permits a tentative reconstruction of a distinctive
system of images. The Oxus Civilization scheme, representing the cycles
of nature and life, is notably different from the usual and well-known
interpretive schemes of the Mesopotamian, Indus or Avestan mythologies,
but certainly related to the Iranian Elamite artistic language (forms
and style) if not beliefs, and deeply rooted in Bactria-Margiana. In
this respect, the symbolic system of the Oxus Civilization is an
original expresssion of a more general Eurasian mythological universe of
very ancient origin, which can be termed shamanistic.