Lands of Asia layouts (Eng) 26.11.21

2 .4
1. Pre-Achaemenid objects from Media and Lurestan;
2. Objects from the Achaemenid period, from Western Iran, which may
have belonged to kings or satraps;
3. Objects made as part of traditions in Asia Minor dating from before the
end of the 4th century BC;
4. Objects of local Bactrian origin from the same period;
5. Objects made as part of Scythian-Siberian traditions.
Only the last two groups of objects can be said to reflect the distinctive features of
Central Asian art in Achaemenid times, and then only the development of the art of
toreutics and jewellery. As regards the objects in the first three groups, one hypothesis
suggests that they were brought to the Bactrian temple when Alexander the Great’s
troops were stationed here, or as trophies of war captured by the Macedonian army
from major Iranian cities and then given as offerings to the temple. But this is only
one possible hypothesis of many, which might be put forward, provided that it can be
proved that the temple of Oxus (to which the archaeologist I.R. Pichikyan linked the
Amu Darya treasure) had already been built at the time of Alexander the Great. The
absence of habitation layers with the cylindrical-conical pottery characteristic of the
5th–4th centuries BC at Takht-i Sangin is significant, and suggests that the temple
was built later, namely in the Seleucid or Graeco-Bactrian periods.
It is unlikely that the Amu Darya hoard is composed of a part of the precious metal
objects selected from the treasure of the temple of Oxus. It is clear that we are dealing
with two different ‘collections’ from different times. The first relates to that of the
Amu Darya hoard from an earlier period, namely the 6th–4th centuries BC, with an
almost complete absence of objects from Hellenistic times (3rd–2nd centuries BC).
This hoard was probably hidden between the late 4th and the early 3rd century BC, as
the scholar R. Ghirshman justifiably surmised. The second, the treasure of the temple
of Oxus, is more recent and dates from the 3rd century to the beginning of the second
half of the 2nd century BC and includes a small number of objects from Achaemenid
times but mostly objects from Hellenistic times.
The very existence of two temples located close to each other (in this case
5 km apart), even assuming that they functioned simultaneously, is a common
phenomenon in religious practice. The assumption that the Amu Darya hoard belongs
to the temple treasure is questionable. Even though most of it consists of religious,
votive objects, the hoard also includes many domestic objects. The suggestion that it
may have belonged to a Bactrian aristocratic family is also doubtful. Zeymal believes
that the Amu Darya hoard is simply not big enough to be considered a part of the
temple treasure or even the treasure of an entire family. It could have belonged to one
73