The Spatial Organization of Ai Khanoum, a Greek City in Afghanistan

The Spatial Organization of Ai Khanoum, a Greek City in AfghanistanAuthor(s): Laurianne Martinez-SveSource: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 118, No. 2 (April 2014), pp. 267-283Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.118.2.0267 .Accessed: 05/06/2014 01:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.238.16.30 on Thu, 5 Jun 2014 01:32:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aiahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3764/aja.118.2.0267?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

American Journal of Archaeology 118 (2014) 26783267

The Spatial Organization of Ai Khanoum, a Greek City in Afghanistan

LAuriAnne MArTinez-Sve

ArTiCLe

AbstractThe excavations of the Greek settlement of Ai Kha-

noum took place between 1965 and 1978; they are not yet fully published, and work is still in progress. This article presents the spatial organization of the town by taking into account the results of recent research, which help clarify the different stages of its history. Ai Khanoum was founded as a city by the Seleucid king Antiochos I (r. 281261 B.C.E.) and thereafter underwent development, particularly from the beginning of the second century. But it was only under Eucratides (r. ca. 170145) that it took the form we now know. Several elements considered in this article shed light on the nature and functions of the settlement: its urban organization, the division between public spaces and private spaces, and the extent of Greek influence on these elements. We know that Ai Khanoum was a royal residence and that the Seleucid and Graeco-Bactrian kings were very much present there throughout its history. It may have looked like other eastern royal capi-tals of that time, whose architecture, which combined east-ern and Greek influences, was inspired by that of the royal residences of the eastern part of the Seleucid kingdom.*

introduction

Ai Khanoum, located on the south bank of the Darya-i Pandj in northeast Afghanistan (fig. 1), was founded at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. In antiquity, this part of central Asia formed the Bac-tria region, one of the satrapies of the Achaemenid empire. Following Alexander the Greats conquests, it was one of the satrapies of the Seleucid kingdom. Seleucos I established himself in Babylonia in 312 B.C.E. and then went on to reconquer central Asia ca. 305. Seleucos was succeeded by his son, Antiochos I, who had been appointed coregent in 294 and who established himself in Bactria as the ruler of central Asia.1 Antiochos mother was Apama, daughter of the

Bactrian nobleman Spitamenes; Seleucos had mar-ried her at Susa in 324. Antiochos was, therefore, half Bactrian.2 Bactria remained under Seleucid rule until the middle of the third century, when the eastern-most provinces of the kingdom broke free. Diodotos I and his son, Diodotos II, who took the royal title ca. 235, founded a new kingdom in Bactria, the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom.3

Little is known about the early part of Ai Khanoums history, but in the second century the city was one of the major centers of Hellenistic Bactria.4 During the reign of King Eucratides (ca. 170145 B.C.E.), it was probably one of the kingdoms capitals and was known as Eucratideia.5 Except for the city of Bactra, the ancient Achaemenid satrapic residence, it is the only real Hellenistic city we know of in that country. But unlike Bactra, Ai Khanoum has been extensively excavated, and thus we are able to study its urban or-ganization. It was strategically located at the conflu-ence of the Darya-i Pandjthe upper part of the Amu Darya Riverand the Kokcha Rivers, at the southern extremity of a rich plain that was already under culti-vation when the Greek colonists settled there: irriga-tion networks had been constructed during the second millennium and the first half of the first millennium B.C.E.6 The settlement was established where the val-ley is narrower and easier to protect, and this strategic position allowed control of the road that followed the course of the river. From there it was possible for the inhabitants of Ai Khanoum to keep an eye on the no-mads and mountain tribes who entered the plain from the north and the south by taking the roads flanking the Kyzil Su and the Kokcha Rivers. These roads also led to semiprecious stone mines (e.g., lapis lazuli) and silver mines.

* This article is the result of a paper I gave at Lincoln Col-lege in Oxford following the invitation of R.R.R. Smith. I would like to thank him for his help and for his very friendly and hospitable welcome. Fig. 1 is my own.

1 Capdetrey 2007, 3950, 7681.2 Mairs 2011b, 18081.

3 Holt 1999; Kritt 2001.4 For the most recent data on the history of the city, see

Martinez-Sve 2013a, (forthcoming).5 According to Strabo (11.11.2; see also 15.1.3), Eucratides

founded a Eucratideia in Bactria.6 Gardin 1998, 3847, 106112.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

laurianne martinez-sve268 [AJA 118

Excavations were carried out between 1965 and 1978 by the French Archaeological Delegation in Af-ghanistan, under the direction of Paul Bernard.7 Ai Khanoum had been visited in 1838 by a Scottish ex-plorer, John Wood, and then again in 1926 by Jules Barthoux, a French archaeologist, but until the 1960s the site had never been excavated.8 The city covers a triangular area 1.8 km long and 1.6 km wide and is protected by the two converging rivers and a 60 m high tabular hill on its southeast side (fig. 2). The town was divided into three parts: the acropolis, the lower city, and an intermediate terrace located between them, 5 m above the lower city. Most of the excavations were centered on the lower city and on some parts of the terrace. A residential quarter in the south and several monumental public buildings, including a palace, a

gymnasium, two mausoleums, a theater, a temple, and an arsenal, were discovered.9 The acropolis is less well explored. The main structures that have been exca-vated on the acropolis include a podium where open-air worship took place (a feature of religions practiced in the Iranian world),10 small houses, and parts of the fortification system.11 The town was well defended by walls running along its three sides and by a citadel on the southeast edge of the acropolis.12 The main gate of the city was set in the northern wall, where a long street running from the foot of the acropolis ended. Surveys have shown that the outskirts of the city contained sev-eral residences and the necropolis. Another temple, a large house, and a grave were excavated in this area.13

In general, the remains lay close to the surface and are relatively easy to reach because the city was not re-

7 All the references are in Mairs 2011a, 269.8 Bernard 1978b.9 Residential quarter: Lecuyot 2013. Palace: Bernard et al.

1973, 1783 (palace); Rapin 1992 (palace treasury). Gymna-sium: Veuve 1987. Mausoleums: Bernard et al. 1973, 85102 (Kineas Heroon); H.-P. Francfort in Bernard et al. 1976, 2539 (hron au caveau de pierre). Theater: Bernard 1976a, 31422; 1978a, 42951. Temple: Francfort 1984; Martinez-

Sve 2010. Arsenal: Bernard 1980, 45257.10 Bernard 1976a, 3067; 1990, 534; Boyce and Grenet

1991, 18283.11 Leriche 1986, 926, 5964.12 Leriche 1986.13 Temple: Bernard 1976a, 3037; 1990, 534. Large house:

Bernard 1974, 28187; Lecuyot 2013, 10336. Grave: Bernard 1972, 60625.

Fig. 1. Map of Hellenistic central Asia (ancient cites are shown in italics; modern cities are shown in roman).



Ai khAnoum, A greek city in AfghAnistAn2014] 269

occupied after its final abandonment. The situation at Ai Khanoum is quite different, therefore, from what one finds elsewhere in central Asia, where the towns were inhabited over a long period of time and where it was usual to build over old constructions, thereby raising the ground level. In other places as well, the Hellenistic layers are usually found deep below the surface. In Termez, for example, the remains of the Hellenistic period lie 15 m below the existing ground level and are therefore very difficult to reach. The ex-cavation strategy at Ai Khanoum was to clear large ar-eas so as to obtain a comprehensive plan of the city.14 The excavations were conducted with appropriate

methodological rigor, and attention was paid to stra-tigraphy, which was not always the case at that time of excavation in the 1960s and 1970s. However, during the wars in Afghanistan in the last decades the town was extensively looted to supply the antiquities market and unfortunately is now almost completely devastated.

The way in which the city was organized has al-ready been studied by various scholars, Bernard in particular.15 More recently, however, our knowledge of the town has been enriched through the creation of computer-generated images by the TASEI Corpo-ration, a Japanese company.16 They have produced a geographical relief model of the site, a view of the

14 Bernard 2009.15 Bernard 1979.16 Lecuyot 2007. These three-dimensional images stem

from joint work between the TASEI Corporation and the

archaeology department of the cole Normale Suprieure (UMR 8546 CNRS-ENS). They were produced in the context of the cooperation agreement between the two partners.

Fig. 2. Plan of Ai Khanoum (drawing by J. Liger and G. Lecuyot).




citys general layout, and some reconstructions of indi-vidual buildings (fig. 3). The results are illuminating. For the first time, we are able to visualize the build-ings in all their dimensions, to know their actual pro-portions and volume, and to see what they may have looked like, complete with architectural decoration, and how they fitted into their surroundings. In this ar-ticle, we summarize all the data on the urban structure of the city, taking into account the contributions of the more recent work by the team currently engaged in the publication of the excavations.17 Their work focused particularly on pottery,18 which helps clarify the chronology, as well as on private housing19 and the Temple with Indented Recesses.20 This new research gives a clearer idea of the history and role of Ai Kha-noum, which was supported by the Graeco-Bactrian kings from the beginning of the second century B.C.E. and probably became one of their main residences.

history of the city

To study the development and organization of the city, we first need to take into account the chronology of the buildings. Indeed, we must be careful not to work from an artificial representation of the citythat is, one with buildings from different periods shown as present at the same time. This requires that the dates of the various buildings be known, which is not always the case, since the results of the excavations have not yet been fully published. In addition, since this field-work was conducted, our knowledge of the site and its chronology has increased.21 The lower city was never lived in prior to the Greek settlers arrival, though the countryside was inhabited by people dwelling on farms and in small villages. The main Achaemenid settle-ment, Kohna Qala, semicircular and protected by two ramparts, is unexcavated and is located 1.5 km north of Ai Khanoum, near the river.22 An Achaemenid gar-rison may have been stationed at the acropolis of Ai Khanoum.23 If so, a Greek garrison likely replaced it during the time of Alexander, but the excavations in this area were not extensive enough for us to be sure of this. In the lower city, the oldest excavated build-ings are the Kineas Heroon and the sanctuary in their first stage of occupation (fig. 4). Lyonnet has recently shown that they contained the same ceramic mate-

rial and were therefore contemporaneous.24 Some well-stratified coins from the sanctuary allow us to conclude that these two buildings were constructed during the reign of Antiochos I (281261 B.C.E.). Stra-tigraphy also reveals that the street, which lay close to the sanctuary entrance, was constructed at the same time, along with the first fortifications.25 All this evi-dence is very helpful for dating the first construction of the town under Antiochos I. Thereafter the charac-ter and status of the settlement changed. A large city was built, complete with appropriate infrastructure and protected by a massive fortification wall. This de-velopment was not the outcome of population growth but stemmed from a royal decision. Even though the deepest occupation levels are poorly known, there is no reason to suppose that the population increased. According to Lyonnet, the ceramic repertory was not very inventive and was more suited to a military strong-hold than to a city.26 It seems that little changed over the next few decades after the death of Antiochos. At this time, Seleucid power was being challenged in Bactria, and this may have affected the development of the city. The royal city that Antiochos I wished to create may have experienced some difficulties in its early decades, which is possibly why we do not know its ancient name.

A further stage in the development of the city oc-curred at the end of the third century B.C.E. or the beginning of the second, when the number of inhab-itants increased. This is the first period for which we know something about their houses, and it was at this time that the town began to acquire the form with which we are now familiar. Some public buildings were erectedfor example, the Main Propylaea at the side of the main street.27 In the final period of the city, this monument gave access to a passage leading to the palace gate. We do not know exactly when this palace was first built because only its more recent levels have been excavated. We can assume that there were already public buildings in that part of the town and farther north, where remains of thermal baths were discovered beneath the gymnasium.28 This period saw major innovations in ceramics, with many more influences coming from the Mediterranean world.29 New technologies were introduced: the proportion of

17 Lyonnet 2012; Martinez-Sve 2013a, (forthcoming).18 Lyonnet 2012, 2013.19 Lecuyot 2013.20 Martinez-Sve 2010. P. Bernard has entrusted me with

the publication of the architectural and historical study of the sanctuary, for which I warmly thank him.

21 Martinez-Sve 2013a, (forthcoming).22 Gardin 1998, 42, 456.

23 Leriche 1986, 24, 712.24 Lyonnet 2012, 147, 158.25 Martinez-Sve 2010, 201.26 Lyonnet 2001, 151; 2012, 158.27 Guillaume 1983.28 Veuve 1987, 526.29 Lyonnet 2001, 142; 2012, 155; 2013, 18691.




gray-black fine tableware greatly increased, and new forms appeared, including molded Megarian bowls, the presence of which allows us to date this period to the beginning of the second century. Rotroff has shown that the first Athenian Megarian bowls are not earlier than the last quarter of the third century B.C.E. and that it took some years before they spread throughout the Hellenistic world, probably reaching Ai Khanoum at the beginning of the second century B.C.E.30 These developments may have been the re-sult of the military expedition of the Seleucid king Antiochos III to reconquer central Asia. Between 208 and 206, he besieged Bactra, but it was successfully defended by the Graeco-Bactrian king Euthydemos and his son Demetrios. He may also have come to Ai Khanoum while conducting military operations in the area.31 The introduction of new forms of pottery and the increasing Mediterranean influence might be ac-counted for by the arrival of new populations. So it is possible that Antiochos III settled new colonists here. In any case, the citys development continued under the reigns of Euthydemos and Demetrios, the true cre-ators of the power of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom.

Several official buildings were reconstructed during their reigns, and the sanctuary was entirely rebuilt, although the Temple with Indented Recesses under-went only minor changes.

It was, however, under Eucratides that the city reached its apex and acquired its final appearance. Several public buildings were erected (the palace, the gymnasium) or reconstructed (once again, the sanc-tuary, the heroon, and the Main Propylaea). We do not know much about the chronology of the theater and the arsenal because they are still unpublished, but both were certainly operational at this time. This building program must have been costly, and it seems that in some places it was subsequently scaled back. For example, the original plan of the new sanctuary included two porticoes at the north and south sides of the courtyard, but only the south portico was actually built (fig. 5). Inside the gymnasium and the palace trea-sury, some of the constructions also remained incom-plete, as there was not enough time to finish them.32 The town experienced dramatic events ca. 145 B.C.E. It is usually thought that it was attacked by a nomadic people from the Eurasian steppe and subsequently

30 Rotroff 1982, 1997, 2006. During the excavations, the in-troduction of the Megarian bowls to Ai Khanoum had been dated ca. 250 B.C.E. Lerner (20032004, 2005, 2010) was first to propose correcting the chronology of the city and was right on that point; see also Lyonnet 2013, 187; Martinez-Sve

2013a, 215; (forthcoming).31 Kritt 2001, 15257; Lerner 20032004, 399400; Lyonnet

2012, 157 n. 37; Martinez-Sve 2013a, 21617; (forthcoming).32 Veuve 1987, 15, 30, 34; Rapin 1992, 267.

Fig. 3. Reconstructed view of Ai Khanoum (G. Lecuyot and O. Ishizawa; courtesy NHK/TASEI).




abandoned. Rather, it seems that the local populations themselves may have attacked the city along with the nomads and therefore that they played a major role in this event. Everyone who was close to the king, such as members of the administration and Greeks and Bac-trians who had adopted the Greek way of life, fled the city. The rest of the population continued to live there for several decades before being driven out themselves, presumably as the result of a further attack.33 Only then was the city finally abandoned.

ai khanoum, a royal seleucid foundation

We have sufficient information to study in detail the citys organization over only a relatively short pe-

riod of time, from ca. 170 to 145 B.C.E., because only the Eucratidean levels of the city have been fully ex-cavated. We can, however, say something about the beginnings of the Seleucid town, which is important because archaeology provides us very few examples of such Seleucid foundations. First, it was designed from the outset to be a town of considerable size. The site of the confluence of the rivers was chosen because it met Greek criteria for urban settings. The area of Ai Khanoum was larger than that of Kohna Qala, the ear-lier main settlement in the plain. The triangular shape (or rectangular if we exclude the acropolis) was better suited than a semicircle for establishing a Greek city, and the two rivers and the acropolis made it easier to

33 This last phase in the history of the city was probably longer than previously thought (Lerner 2011). For a different point of view, see Martinez-Sve 2013a, 21920; (forthcoming).

Fig. 4. Central area of the lower city of Ai Khanoum (drawing by J. Liger).




protect. Second, the rampart lines were laid out from the beginning so as to include the total space available. In this respect, Ai Khanoum is clearly different from a town such as Dura Europos, another Seleucid foun-dation, which developed gradually. At the beginning of the third century B.C.E., Dura Europos was a small military stronghold, and it only became a town 150 years later.34 It is therefore evident that Ai Khanoum was a royal city and probably the largest Seleucid foun-dation in central Asia. During the Hellenistic period, cities were always founded on the initiative of kings or dynasts, who alone had the necessary resources and authority. Everything indicates Ai Khanoum was de-signed from the outset to be an essential element of Seleucid rule in Bactria, allowing Seleucid control over the eastern part of Bactria and into what is now Tajiki-stan. We can thus understand why Antiochos I minted large numbers of bronze coins in Bactria, probably in Ai Khanoum itself, because the work was paid for out of the royal treasure.35 Third, some of the guidelines of the towns organization were established from the time of its foundation. The main street was one of the first features to be laid out, and its position was never changed. This street played a structuring role in the

urbanism of the city, since most of the buildings, ex-cept for the palace, were oriented along it. The same orientation characterized the Darya-i Pandj and the natural features. The decision to build the street near the foot of the acropolis rather than in the lower city may seem surprising. According to Bernard, it allowed a large space for public buildings, especially for the palace.36 But it is doubtful that such a large complex existed from the beginning of citys history. In such a position, the street could link the acropolis with the lowest parts of the town. We can thus conclude that the acropolis was fully integrated into the overall plan of the town from the earliest times. The main canal, which brought water into the city, flowed alongside this street, after entering near the north edge of the acropolis and running along its lowest slopes. This watercourse was needed to supply water to the south-ern part of the city. As it was usual in Greek towns to combine human movement and the circulation of water, the position of the street was also determined by the canals position.

Construction work on the street and the canal was concurrent with large-scale landscaping to remodel the intermediate terrace. The impact of these projects

34 Leriche 2010.35 Kritt 1996, 234; 2001, 16784.

Fig. 5. Main sanctuary, under Eucratides (numbers indicate room numbers) (drawing by J. Liger).

36 Bernard 1979, 112.




has been observed in several areas: at the Main Pro-pylaea, the sanctuary, and a large public construction south of the sanctuary. The work involved reshaping the natural topography so as to flatten the surface of the terrace where buildings were to be erected. Its slopes were also reshaped to present a regular front. For this, the builders used huge quantities of pebble fill, a material with good drainage qualities. On the south side of the sanctuary courtyard, where the virgin soil was deeper than on the north side, this pebble fill was found at a depth of approximately 2 m (figs. 6, 7). A small chapel was erected there in a preeminent position, making it the highest point of the sanctuary. Consequently, water flowed inside the sanctuary from south to north, the opposite of the natural course, a feature that shows the scale of the work implement-ed. At the time of Eucratides, for someone standing in the lower city the intermediate terrace would have presented a succession of steps on which monumental constructions rose up to a prominent position. We do not know the entire chronology of these works, but the discovery of a bronze coin of Antiochos I among the sanctuary pebbles, at a depth of 1.5 m, and the stratigraphy of this building suggest that they were started during his reign. It was therefore probably Se-leucid architects who planned these urban designs, in conformity with Greek notions.

Along with the fortification walls, the Kineas Her-oon, and the sanctuary were the two other buildings constructed under Antiochos I, shortly after the foun-dation of the town, suggesting that Ai Khanoum was founded on the same model that had been in use since the Archaic period. All the stories that provide details about the circumstances of Archaic founda-tions reveal that the first duty of the settlers and the man who guided them, the oikist, was to organize the physical space of the colony. They first needed to build fortifications for the citys protection and to determine public spaces for roads, streets, official buildings, and a necropolis, as well as private spaces for the colonists

and religious spaces for the gods. The settlers could not establish their colony without the help of the gods, who ensured their safety and helped the new city de-velop. All this happened in Ai Khanoum. The sanctu-ary, in the center of the city, was probably the main place of worship and the home of the chief deity of its pantheon. Even though this god may have taken on the appearance of a Greek deity, probably Zeus,37 he was most likely a local one.38 The heroon was another place of worship. A dedicatory inscription, from a man named Klearchos, engraved on the base of a pedestal that had been erected inside its precinct, tells us that it was known as the Temenos of Kineas. This pedestal supported a stele on which were engraved Delphic maxims that Klearchos had copied in Delphi.39 These aphorisms specified the main qualities a Greek man should display and were in some way a definition of Greek identity. Kineas was not a deity but a human be-ing who had been buried there. The building stood on a three-stepped podium and comprised a pronaos with two columns in antis and a narrower cella. Below the cella floor was Kineas limestone sarcophagus. Very few people had the right to be buried inside a city in ancient Greece. An exception was made for city found-ers, who were citizens held in particular reverence. We can assume that Kineas had been the founder of the city on behalf of the king and that he died shortly after its foundation.

organization of public and private spaces

We do not know where the towns first inhabitants built their houses. No remains of a subdivision plan were found, and we do not even know whether the land was divided into a number of lots. The earliest house that has been excavated was erected at the be-ginning of the second century in the southern part of the town.40 Several years later, this area was a residen-tial quarter planned using an orthogonal street layout. Five rows of houses have been identified through aerial photographs, along with five or six parallel eastwest

37 Bernard 1969, 33841.38 According to Grenet (1991, 14951), Zeus was equated

with Mithra. We must not forget that, as the Iranian people were not accustomed to representing their gods, they tended to import foreign iconographic models when they wanted to do so, including models of Greek origin. An image of Zeus could be used to represent any male deity whose personality was similar to the Greek gods.

39 Dedication of Klearchos: The wise words of men of old, words of celebrated men/are set up in most holy Pytho/ From there Klearchos copied them meticulously/and had them drawn up, brilliant from afar, in the temenos of Kineas ( |

| | ). Delphic maxims: In childhood, be well behaved/in youth, have self-control/in middle age, behave justly/in old age, be of wise counsel/in death, be without sorrow ( | | | || ) (CII 2[1] 97 [translation by Lerner 20032004, 39192]). Klearchos is generally seen as Klearchos of Soloi, a disciple of Aristotle, which is doubtful if the city was founded by Antiochos I (r. 281261 B.C.E.); he must have been ca. 60 years old in 280.

40 Lecuyot 2013, 1374; Lyonnet 2013, 186.




streets (fig. 8). We know less about the layout of the side streets, which changed over time. The lots they formed were wholly occupied by single residences, whereas it was usual in ancient Greece for several houses to share the same lot. The lot that has been excavated covers an area of approximately 2,300 m2. By way of comparison, eight houses shared a 2,400 m2 lot in Dura Europos, and in Olynthus 10 houses shared a 3,000 m2 lot.41 These large single residences clearly reflect the wealth of the inhabitants of Ai Khanoum. The population density was also lower, even though we can assume that numerous slaves and servants lived in each house. Most of the houses excavated in Ai Khanoum had the same layout.42 They always in-cluded a large courtyard, which occupied at least half of the total area and was used as a private space for relaxation. A vestibule with two columns gave access to a reception room, which was the largest space in the house. The courtyard, the hall, and the reception

41 Liger 1979, 5963. 42 Lecuyot 2013, 19397.

Fig. 6. Main sanctuary, Seleucid period (drawing by J. Liger).

Fig. 7. Pebble fill at the back of the small South Chapel (courtesy P. Bernard).




room were always laid out axially. The reception room was usually surrounded by corridors leading to the private spaces. These private spaces were always provided with bathrooms, a characteristic feature of the Greek presence in central Asia. Even the military garrisoned in the little fort of Kurgansol, which con-trolled the road between Bactria and Sogdiana 100 km north of Termez, had bath facilities.43 There were no bathrooms in the older houses, and bathrooms disap-peared altogether after the Greeks left.

Overall, it is estimated that approximately 40 resi-dences stood in this southern residential area, a small number on an urban scale. It is likely, therefore, that only the dominant elites lived in this part of the city. In contrast, the public spaces covered large areas. At the time of Eucratides, the official and public build-ings, including the gymnasium, the sanctuary, the Kineas Heroon, and another mausoleum (which took the form of a small Greek temple and contained the graves of another dignitarys family) occupied a cen-

tral position and extended over a third of the lower city. Some of these buildings were very impressive. The palace had an area of more than 7 ha, and it was accessed through a vast courtyard measuring 137 m long x 108 m wide. A sizeable hypostyle hall with 18 columns gave access to several room units, some of which were also very large. The palaestra, compa-rable to the one at Olympia, occupied a square of 1 ha, and the adjoining courtyard was slightly larger. The theater, 85 m in diameter, could accommodate as many as 5,000 spectators, considerably more than the number of inhabitants. Several factors may account for this monumentality. From the standpoint of the authorities, especially the kings, it was a demonstra-tion of power and strength. Ai Khanoum was a royal city and a space for royal scenography. The citys ex-istence and its visual aspect were the results of royal initiatives. The town needed to embody the power of the Graeco-Bactrian kings and to exhibit their wealth. In this respect, Graeco-Bactrian kings behaved no dif-ferently than other Hellenistic kings. Strabo (17.1.8) tells us that in Alexandria, too, the royal district ex-tended over a third of the city. Royal involvement also explains why, from the end of the third century B.C.E., there was intensive construction work. Subsequently, the town was constantly being rebuilt. The sanctuary, for example, was completely reconstructed three times between 235 and 160 B.C.E. But this is only part of the explanation. More generally, all the members of the elite were rich and did not hesitate to flaunt their wealth. Some of their houses were massive, such as the extramural residence that extended over an area of 7,700 m2 (fig. 9). It was laid out like the other houses in the town, with a courtyard 65 m long x 60 m wide surrounded by a perimeter corridor. The stoa vestibule was supported by two 8 m high columns. The tradi-tional bathroom was behind the reception room, and on the west side a block of five rooms formed the living space. This block comprised two living rooms, each heated by a fireplace, and three small bedrooms.44 In constructing such huge buildings, the inhabitants of Ai Khanoum behaved like the archaic Greek settlers in other colonial settings of Sicily and southern Italy, where we find some of the largest and widest Doric temples ever built, such as the Temple of Zeus at Agrigento. These colonial societies were profoundly nonegalitarian, dominated by an elite that drew its wealth from farming.

While there is no doubt about the enormous scale of the official spaces, we nonetheless need to take into

Fig. 8. Aerial photograph of the southern part of Ai Kha-noum (courtesy P. Bernard).

43 Sverchkov 2008, 137; 2010, 150. 44 Bernard 1974, 28187; Lecuyot 2013, 10336.




account distortions caused by the incompleteness of the excavations. First, although the northern area of the town remains unexcavated, it suffered from plun-dering as did the rest of the lower city, so it was prob-ably occupied as well. At the time of the excavations, there were no visible monumental constructions in this part of the town, but undulations in the ground revealed the presence of archaeological remains.45 Moreover, surveys have shown that population den-sities were high in the periphery of the city, outside the ramparts, where the huge residence mentioned above was sited.46 An urban belt grew up along an ancient road that formed an extension of the main street in the countryside and along another that ran from the east foot of the acropolis to the Kokcha. This urban belt covered an area of 150 ha and was almost

as large as the town itself (170 ha). Among its many archaeological remains are several large residences with courtyards. In addition, a semiurban belt cover-ing some 300 ha can also be distinguished. This area contained gardens and orchards and was dotted with residences and more modest dwellings. The city thus extended beyond the ramparts, with the intramural town largely given over to official buildings. The in-habitants must have felt safe enough to live in such an unprotected way, at least until the events of 145 B.C.E. revealed the weakness of their position.

The elites were not the only ones, however, who lived inside the walls. Small houses have been exca-vated in several places inside the town, especially above the acropolis and near the sanctuary. Three rooms, one of which contained a fireplace, have been found

45 However, according to Bernard (1979, 112) these re-mains were not those of a residential quarter.

46 Gardin 1998, 412.

Fig. 9. Plan of extramural house, under Eucratides (numbers indicate room numbers) (drawing by G. Lecuyot).




beneath an inner wall of the Timurid period erected across the acropolis.47 These rooms had been dam-aged by more recent graves of the Kushan period and by the wall itself. They were built at the beginning of the second century, probably for soldiers, but were not inhabited for very long. In the area of the sanctuary, the earliest excavated houses date from the beginning of the second century, but the excavations did not get down to virgin soil, so there may be other, still earlier, dwellings.48 Three or four houses have been excavated in the area surrounding the small South Chapel, and there were probably more. Some time later, a long wall was built to close off the south side of the sanctuary courtyard and protect its area from being appropri-ated. More houses were erected later, and after some decades the whole neighborhood became urbanized (see fig. 5 [Rooms 2.2934, 3.08]). Most of the houses contained fireplaces and benches and were fairly small, with one or two rooms, though one of them, located at the northwest of the sanctuary, was larger. Only three rooms of this house have been excavated, and they show that the house extended northward (see figs. 5 [Rooms 2.1416], 10). The southernmost room was a small bathroom equipped with a bath and a fireplace dug inside the wall (fig. 11). Near the entrance, a large jar was used to store hot water. These houses, located all around the sanctuary but unrelated to it, were built in a preeminent part of the town and show that there was no systematic zoning.

how extensive was greek influence?

The extent of Greek influence in Ai Khanoum is another debated issue. The city is often described as an outpost of Hellenism, one occupied by Greek colonists who remained profoundly attached to the values of Hellenism and to the more scholarly forms of Greek culture, as evidenced by the Kineas inscrip-tion, the Delphic maxims, and funerary epigraphy that reveals a taste for poetry.49 Indeed, Ai Khanoum displayed the most typical characteristics of Greek towns, as pointed out by Greek authors themselves. According to Pausanias (10.4.1), a Greek town should have a theater, a gymnasium, a fountain, an agora, and public buildings. Ai Khanoum possessed most of these features, and some of them seem very typical of Greek architecturefor example, the northern mau-soleum, which looked like a small Greek temple with two columns in antis and a peristyle. The gymnasium conformed to the traditional Greek plan, except for the long peripheral corridors that replaced the usual

porticoes. These corridors were common in local ar-chitecture and much cheaper to build than porticoes, whose numerous columns required the importation of large amounts of stone and wood. The theater, like the other constructions, was made entirely of mudbrick, which may seem surprising for this type of building. Just below the diazoma, the rows of seats were interrupted by three platformsused as loggia for dignitaries that were reached by wide staircases. Such loggia are

47 Leriche 1986, 623.48 Martinez-Sve 2013b.

49 CII 2(1) 136, 137, 24449.

Fig. 10. House located at the northwest of the main sanctuary (courtesy P. Bernard).

Fig. 11. Bathroom of the house located at the northwest of the main sanctuary (courtesy P. Bernard).




unusual, since the proedria seats are generally located at the orchestra level and not 6 m above it as they are in this theater, but comparable examples can be found in the Hellenistic theaters of Pergamon and Priene.50 From this position, it was easier to see the actors, who during this period performed on the top of the pro-skenion more often than in the orchestra. In Ai Kha-noum, the proskenion and the scene building were made of wood.

The water-supply and water-drainage networks were also highly developed, and many water pipes were found during the excavations. A fountain was discov-ered near the gymnasium, at the base of the outer side of the rampart;51 it is the only known example of this type of construction in the Middle East. The fountain was made entirely of stone and measured approximate-ly 7 m in length. Originally (during the second half of the third century), water flowed through six spouts carved in the form of dolphin heads. It subsequently became necessary to change the water-supply system, and these waterspouts were replaced by two new ones representing a comic actors mask and a dogs head.

In assessing the extent of Greek influence, another problem is the absence of an identifiable agora. Ai Khanoum may have been a city-state, a Greek polis. Even in the case of royal cities, community life in the Greek world would have been inconceivable outside of the polis framework. The royal cities of Pergamon and Alexandria, for instance, which are better known than Ai Khanoum, were genuine city-states. Moreover, the Greek city-state model spread across the Middle East during the Hellenistic period. Antiocheia in Persia (the present-day Iranian city of Bushir), for example, enjoyed a democracy based on the Athenian model.52 There is therefore no reason to doubt that Ai Khanoum was a genuine Greek polis. This does not mean, how-ever, that the Ai Khanoum elites behaved like the civic elites of the old cities of the Mediterranean world and that they always expressed themselves in the same way. Nevertheless, the existence of a public space where the inhabitants could meet, converse, and interact was part and parcel of Greek life. Although the theater may have hosted assemblies, it is hard to imagine that the city did not also possess a public space, such as an ag-ora. However, no agora has been definitely identified.

This role may have been played by one of the several incompletely excavated areas located south and north of the palace, or perhaps by a courtyard near the main street, 80 m south of the sanctuary.53 Another possi-bility is that the huge palace courtyard served as the agora, though Bernard has argued against this.54 The palace courtyard comprised a large rectangular space covering 1.5 ha (by way of comparison, the area of the Athenian Agora was 2 ha) and enclosed by four long Corinthian porticoes. In Bernards opinion, such an empty space, lacking public buildings where the citys administration could have gathered and worked, was not suitable for an agora. But the agoras of Miletus and Magnesia-on-the-Meander, which are large peri-style courtyards without many buildings, show that this kind of layout became popular in the Hellenistic period. Pausanias refers to them as Ionian agoras.55 These spaces were surrounded and defined by large double porticoes that housed administrative offices as well as shops. This arrangement was not possible in Ai Khanoum, where the porticoes were too narrow to accommodate rooms. This lack of rooms probably stems from the fact that the local architecture used stone and wood in much smaller quantities than did architecture of the Mediterranean world because these materials were more difficult to obtain at Ai Khanoum. Surrounding the courtyard with double porticoes, as in Ionian agoras, would have meant not only doubling the number of columns but also procuring a large number of load-bearing beams longer than 10 m. This would have been very expensive. We can thus understand why double porticoes were never erected in the city.56 In any case, the public offices generally found inside such porticoes could have been situated within the palace itself. The palace was a huge complex; not only did the king and his family live there, but it was also where the administrative offices of both the kingdom and the city were housed. In addition, it is likely that the affairs of the city were not differentiated from those of the king-dom. In Hellenistic Bactria, the adoption of a Greek way of life distinguished the elite from the rest of the population. We can thus suppose that it was impor-tant for the kings to defend and promote those prac-tices most characteristic of Hellenism, as well as civic life and its values.57 The inclusion of an architectural

50 Bernard 1978a, 43637.51 Leriche and Thoraval 1979.52 CII 2(1) 53.53 Bernard 1980, 45152; Lecuyot 2013, 7592.54 Bernard et al. 1973, 2.55 Paus. 6.24.2; see also Vitr., De arch. 5.1.1; Hellmann 2007,

49, 16667; see esp. Marc 1998, 1213. Only the small Temple of Zeus Sosipolis had been erected in the southern part of

the agora of Magnesia. For Magnesia, the first publication was Humann 1904; see also Bingl 2007.

56 Martinez-Sve 2012, 22224.57 Recent work on the Lagid tax on salt has shown that the

Ptolemies did the same thing in the Arsinoite nome, where they favored all those engaged in occupations involving the spread of Greek culture (Burkhalter 2012).




form characteristic of Greek public places in a palace complex can thus be read as symbolic of these close links between royal power and the civic world.58

The architectural decoration of Ai Khanoum also showed very strong Hellenic influences. Columned porticoes of the Corinthian and Doric ordersless often of the Ionic orderwere used in several build-ings: the palace, with two peristyle courts and a hypo-style hall, the sanctuary, the Main Propylaea, and the gymnasium. Some of the roofs were also covered with tiles and decorated with antefixes. However, these Greek influences should not be overestimated. We only have to look at the computer-generated images of the town to realize that Ai Khanoum did not look strictly like a Greek city. All the roofs were flat, as was usual in the Orient and central Asia. Very few were completely covered with tiles; rather, just two or three rows of tiles were placed along the roof edge. All the walls were constructed from mudbricks, even those of the public buildings, which is uncommon in the Greek world. The floors were made of beaten earth and covered with carpets, per local custom. Many col-umn bases were eastern in style and had a large torus on the plinth, a feature widely used in Achaemenid architecture. A campaniform base was also discovered inside the palace foundations.59

The system of proportions used for the longest por-ticoes would also have seemed strange to Greek eyes. The porticoes were much narrower than was usual in the Greek world because they were surmounted by flat roofs and had only one gallery. Several build-ings in the town were of the oriental tradition: none of the three sacred spaces that have been excavated looks Greek.60 The main temple, erected on a stepped podium, consisted of a broad pronaos opening onto a small cella connected to two small adjoining rooms. Its outer walls were decorated with indented recesses (fig. 12). The podium was later replaced by a single platform. It has long been recognized that local and Mesopotamian influences commingled in Ai Kha-noum, and this is especially clear in the temple. The layout of the temple strongly recalls those of a series of Mesopotamian temples from the Neo-Babylonian through the Parthian periodsfor instance, Temple A of Assur, which was built in the Neo-Babylonian period and rebuilt under the Parthians. The stepped podium has certain similarities with some Bactrian religious structures, but it is also reminiscent of the

stepped bases on which some Achaemenid structures stood, such as the grave of Cyrus. The still-unpublished extramural temple with a triple cella was also influ-enced by Mesopotamian models. The third place of worship, an open-air stepped podium on the top of the Acropolis, was clearly related to Iranian and Bactrian sanctuaries of the Achaemenid period and devoted to Iranian cults.

The domestic architecture was also clearly influ-enced by local or more generally Iranian features. The houses of the rich did not have the typical Greek organization around a central courtyard, nor did they include a banqueting hall. They were planned accord-ing to Iranian criteria, as is illustrated by various Ira-nian constructions, such as the Parthian Red Building of Nisa in Turkmenistan61 or the Parthian residency of Abu Qubur in Iraq,62 in which the space is organized around a large central room that is surrounded by pe-ripheral corridors and smaller rooms. The only Greek element is the bathrooms. Bernard has shown that some of the main features of this type of organization can be found in the architecture of the Achaemenid periodfor instance, in Persepolis: all the rooms were on the same side of the courtyard and were set around a larger, central room accessible through a columned porch.63 This plan was therefore inherited from the Achaemenid period and was adopted by the Greek settlers when they established themselves in Ai Kha-noum because it was well suited to local conditions.64 The palace also reveals some oriental features, which have been identified by Bernard, who suggests they are linked to the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid archi-tectural traditions of Mesopotamia.65 The Achaemenid palace at Susa provides the best comparisons. The ori-ental features are as follows:

1. The gathering of room units with differing func-tions into a single building complex. The col-umned vestibule gave access to the administrative section, which consisted of several offices, a court-yard, and a square block divided into four sym-metrical plots where other offices and two large reception halls were located. A residential sec-tion on the southwest was organized in the same way as the private houses. A wide Doric court-yard separated this part of the palace from the treasury (thus the economic section), which was used to store oil, coins, semiprecious stones, and other resources.

58 Martinez-Sve 2010.59 Bernard 1976b, 24752.60 Bernard 1976b, 26672; Downey 1988, 6376; Bernard

1990. See also Mairs (2013) for the influence of Achaemenid traditions.

61 Invernizzi and Lippolis 2008, 83150.62 Gasche and Pons 1991; Gasche 1999.63 Bernard 1976b, 25766, esp. 26164.64 Lecuyot 2013, 2057.65 Bernard 1976b, 25257; see also Rapin 1992, 27273.




2. The orthogonal disposition.3. The use of long corridors for interlinking the archi-

tectural units and homogenizing the whole layout.The treasury was also a typical oriental element.66 While storage rooms were present in palaces in Baby-lonia and Susa, there are more similarities with the Achaemenid structures of east Iran, such as the trea-suries of Dahan-i Gulaman (an Achaemenid residency in Seistan), Altyn 10 (near Bactra), and Nisa.67

conclusion

Recent research on the private housing and the main shrine of Ai Khanoum has clarified the chro-nology of the city and the stages of its development. This research confirms that Ai Khanoum was designed from the outset as a royal city, reflecting the power of its ruling kings. Antiochos I initiated large-scale con-struction after the citys founding. Little further de-velopment took place until the Graeco-Bactrian kings of the first half of the second century B.C.E. engaged once again in large construction projects. Ai Khanoum

Fig. 12. Temple with Indented Recesses (courtesy P. Bernard).

66 Rapin 1992, 27478.67 Dahan-i Gulaman: Genito 1986. Altyn 10: Sarianidi 1986,

was therefore much more than a Greek colony, and we must take this into account when analyzing the extent of Greek and oriental influences on the citys layout and architecture, as well as on the way of life of its inhabitants. It should also be reiterated that the city for which we have the most evidence is rather late in date (between 170 and 145 B.C.E.) and contem-poraneous with the development of Parthian power in the Middle East. The Graeco-Bactrian kings, like their Parthian counterparts, took as their model their Achaemenid predecessors and also the early Seleucid kings. Ai Khanoum looked like the other royal cities of the Hellenistic Near East, where a new architecture had developed as early as the beginning of the third century, under the initiative of the Seleucid kings. This architecture was eclectic and was characterized by a synthesis of various influences coming from all over the Mediterranean world, but particularly from Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau. The Graeco-Bactrian kings took their inspiration from Babylon or Seleucia on the Tigris and may have called on court

7781. Nisa: Invernizzi 2002.




artists working there, as the Parthian kings were also doing in their capital, Nisa, at around the same time.

university of lille 359653 villeneuve [email protected]

Works Cited

Bernard, P. 1969. Quatrime campagne de fouille A Khanoum (Bactriane). CRAI 113(3):31355.

. 1972. Campagne de fouilles A Khanoum (Af-ghanistan). CRAI 116(4):60532.

. 1974. Fouilles de A Khanoum (Afghanistan), campagnes de 1972 et 1973. CRAI 118(2):280308.

. 1976a. Campagne de fouilles 1975 A Khanoum (Afghanistan). CRAI 120(2):287322.

. 1976b. Les traditions orientales dans larchitecture grco-bactrienne. Journal Asiatique 264(34):24575.

. 1978a. Campagne de fouilles 19761977 A Kha-noum (Afghanistan). CRAI 122(2):42163.

. 1978b. La dcouverte du site grec et de la plaine dA Khanoum. In tudes de gographie historique sur la plaine dA Khanoum (Afghanistan), edited by P. Bernard and H.-P. Francfort, 33368. Publications de lURA 10(1). Paris: ditions du Centre National de la Recher-che Scientifique.

. 1979. Problmes dhistoire coloniale grecque travers lurbanisme dune cit hellnistique dAsie Centrale. In 150 Jahre Deutsches Archologisches Institut 18291979: Festveranstaltungen und internationales Kol-loquium, 17.22. April 1979 in Berlin, 10820. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

. 1980. Campagne de fouilles 1978 A Khanoum (Afghanistan). CRAI 124(2):35459.

. 1990. Larchitecture religieuse de lAsie Centrale lpoque hellnistique. In Akten des XIII. Internation-alen Kongresses fr klassische Archologie Berlin 1988, 519. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

. 2009. La dcouverte et la fouille du site hellnis-tique dA Khanoum en Afghanistan: Comment elles se sont faites. Parthica 11:3356.

Bernard, P., R. Desparmet, J.-C. Gardin, P. Gouin, A.P. de Lapparent, M. Le Berre, G. Le Rider, L. Robert, and R. Stucki. 1973. Fouilles dA Khanoum. Vol. 1, Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968. Mmoires de la Dlgation archologique franaise en Afghanistan 21. Paris: di-tions Klincksieck.

Bernard, P., H.-P. Francfort, J.-C. Gardin, J.-C. Liger, B. Lyonnet, and S. Veuve. 1976. Fouilles dA Khanoum (Afghanistan): Campagne de 1974. Bulletin de lEcole franaise dExtrme-Orient 63:558.

Bingl, O. 2007. Magnesia on the Meander: Magnesia Ad Mae-andrum. The City of Artemis with White Eyebrows. Istan-bul: Homer Kitabevi.

Boyce, M., and F. Grenet. 1991. A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 3. Zoroastrianism Under Macedonian and Roman Rule. Leiden and New York: Brill.

Burkhalter, F. 2012. Les Grecs dans lEgypte hellnis-tique. In Les diasporas grecques du VIIIe la fin du IIIe sicle avant J.-C. Actes du colloque de la Sophau organis lUniversit de Lille 3 les 11 et 12 mai 2012, edited by L.

Martinez-Sve, 30717. Pallas 89. Toulouse: Presses Uni-versitaires du Mirail.

Capdetrey, L. 2007. Le Pouvoir sleucide: Territoire, adminis-tration, finances dun royaume hellnistique (312129 avant J.-C.). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

Downey, S.B. 1988. Mesopotamian Religious Architecture: Al-exander Through the Parthians. Princeton: Princeton Uni-versity Press.

Francfort, H.-P. 1984. Fouilles dA Khanoum. Vol. 3, Le sanc-tuaire du temple niches indentes. Pt. 2, Les trouvailles. Mmoires de la Dlgation archologique franaise en Afghanistan 27. Paris: De Boccard.

Gardin, J.-C. 1998. Prospections archologiques en Bactriane orientale (19741978). Vol. 3, Description des sites et notes de synthse. Mmoires de la Mission archologique fran-aise en Asie centrale 9. Paris: ditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Gasche, H. 1999. Abou Qoubour, une rsidence parthe prs de Baghdad. Dossiers dArchologie 243:479.

Gasche, H., and N. Pons. 1991. Abu Qubur 1990, II: Chantier F, le btiment parthe. Northern Akkad Project Reports 7:1134.

Genito, B. 1986. Dahan-i Gulaman: Una citt achemenide tra centro e periferia dellimpero. Oriens Antiquus 25 (34):287317.

Grenet, F. 1991. Mithra au temple principal dA Kha-noum? In Histoire et cultes de lAsie Centrale prislamique: Sources crites et documents archologiques. Actes du Colloque in-ternational du CNRS, Paris, 2228 novembre 1988, edited by P. Bernard and F. Grenet, 14751. Paris: CNRS ditions.

Guillaume, O. 1983. Fouilles dA Khanoum. Vol. 2, Les pro-pyles de la rue principale. Mmoires de la Dlgation archologique franaise en Afghanistan 26. Paris: De Boccard.

Hellmann, M.-C. 2007. LArchitecture grecque. 2nd ed. Paris: Le Livre de Poche.

Holt, F.L. 1999. Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria. Hellenistic Culture and Society 32. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.

Humann, C. 1904. Magnesia am Mander: Bericht ber die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Jahre 18911893. Berlin: Georg Reimer.

Invernizzi, A. 2002. The Square House at Old Nisa. Parthica 2:1353.

Invernizzi, A., and C. Lippolis. 2008. Nisa Partica: Ricerche nel complesso monumentale arsacide 19902006. Monografie di Mesopotamia 9. Florence: Le Lettere.

Kritt, B. 1996. Seleucid Coins of Bactria. Classical Numismat-ic Studies 1. Lancaster: Classical Numismatic Group.

. 2001. Dynastic Transitions in the Coinage of Bactria: Antiochus-Diodotus-Euthydemus. Classical Numismatic Studies 4. Lancaster: Classical Numismatic Group.

Lecuyot, G. 2007. Ai Khanum Reconstructed. In After Al-exander: Central Asia Before Islam, edited by J. Cribb and G. Herrmann, 15562. ProcBritAc 133. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

. 2013. Fouilles dA Khanoum. Vol. 9, Lhabitat priv. Mmoires de la Dlgation archologique franaise en Afghanistan 34. Paris: De Boccard.

Leriche, P. 1986. Fouilles dA Khanoum. Vol. 5, Les rem-parts et les monuments associs. Mmoires de la Dlga-tion archologique franaise en Afghanistan 29. Paris: De Boccard.

. 2010. Europos-Doura sleucide. Electrum 18: 2340.




Leriche, P., and J. Thoraval. 1979. La fontaine du rempart de lOxus A Khanoum. Syria 56:171205.

Lerner, J.D. 20032004. Correcting the Early History of Ay K6noum.AMIran 3536:373410.

. 2005. Greek Ceramic Period IV of A Khanoum. In Centralnaja Azija: Istoniki, istorija, kultura, edited by E.A. Antonova and T.K. Mkrtychev, 46476. Moscow: Izdatelskaja Firma Vostonaja Literatura RAN.

. 2010. Revising the Chronologies of the Hellenis-tic Colonies of Samarkand-Marakanda (Afrasiab IIIII) and A Khanoum (Northeastern Afghanistan). Anaba-sis 1:5879.

. 2011. A Reappraisal of the Economic Inscription and Coin Finds from A Khanoum. Anabasis 2:10347.

Liger, J.-C. 1979. La physionomie urbaine dune cit hellnistique en Asie Centrale. Masters thesis, Uni-versity of Paris.

Lyonnet, B. 2001. Les Grecs, les Nomades et lindpen- dance de la Sogdiane, daprs loccupation compare dA Khanoum et de Marakanda au cours des derniers sicles avant notre re. In Alexanders Legacy in the East, Studies in Honor of P. Bernard, edited by O. Bopearachchi, C.A. Bromberg, and F. Grenet, 14159. Bulletin of the Asia Institute, n.s. 12. Bloomfield Hills, Mich.: Asia Institute.

. 2012. Questions on the Date of the Hellenistic Pottery from Central Asia (Ai Khanoum, Marakanda and Koktepe). Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Sibe-ria 18:14373.

. 2013. La cramique de la maison du quartier sud-ouest dA Khanoum. In Fouilles dA Khanoum. Vol. 9, Lhabitat priv, by G. Lecuyot, 17991. Mmoires de la Dlgation archologique franaise en Afghanistan 34. Paris: De Boccard.

Mairs, R. 2011a. The Archaeology of the Hellenistic Far East: A Survey. BAR-IS 2196. Oxford: Archaeopress.

. 2011b. The Places in Between: Model and Meta-phor in the Archaeology of Hellenistic Arachosia. In From Pella to Gandhara: Hybridisation and Identity in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East, edited by A. Koure-menos, S. Chandrasekaran, and R. Rossi, 17789. BAR-IS 2221. Oxford: Archaeopress.

. 2013. The Temple with Indented Niches at Ai Kh-anoum: Ethnic and Civic Identity in Hellenistic Bactria. In Cults, Creeds and Contests: Religion in the Post-Classical City, edited by R. Alston, O.M. van Nijf, and C. William-son, 85117. Groningen-Royal Hollway Studies on the Greek City After the Classical Age 3. Leuven: Peeters.

Marc, J.-Y. 1998. Les agoras grecques daprs les recher-ches rcentes. Histoire de lart 4243:315.

Martinez-Sve, L. 2010. propos du temple aux niches indentes dA Khanoum: Quelques Observations. In

Paysage et religion en Grce antique: Mlanges offerts Mad-eleine Jost, edited by P. Carlier and C. Lerouge, 195207. Travaux de la maison Ren-Ginouvs 10. Paris: De Boccard.

. 2012. Roi et cits en Asie Centrale: Un roi in-dispensable? In Entits locales et pouvoir central: La cit domine dans lOrient hellnistique, edited by C. Feyel, J. Fournier, L. Graslin-Thom, and F. Kirbihler, 21133. Nancy: De Boccard.

. 2013a. Donnes historiques. In Fouilles dA Kh-anoum. Vol. 9, Lhabitat priv, by G. Lecuyot, 21320. Mmoires de la Dlgation archologique franaise en Afghanistan 34. Paris: De Boccard.

. 2013b. Les maisons du quartier du temple prin-cipal dA Khanoum. In Fouilles dA Khanoum. Vol. 9, Lhabitat priv, by G. Lecuyot, 13743. Mmoires de la Dlgation archologique franaise en Afghanistan 34. Paris: De Boccard.

. Forthcoming. La colonisation grecque en Asie Centrale: Les volutions rcentes de la recherche. In Seleukeia: Studies in Seleucid History, Archaeology and Nu-mismatics in Honor of Getzel M. Cohen, edited by R. Oetjen and F.X. Ryan. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Rapin, C. 1992. Fouilles dA Khanoum. Vol. 8, La trsorerie du palais hellnistique dA Khanoum. Mmoires de la D-lgation archologique franaise en Afghanistan 33. Paris: De Boccard.

Rotroff, S.I. 1982. Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls. Agora 32. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

. 1997. Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheel-made Table Ware and Related Material. Agora 29. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies.

. 2006. The Introduction of the Moldmade Bowl Revisited: Tracking a Hellenistic Innovation. Hesperia 75(3):35778.

Sarianidi, V. 1986. Die Kunst des alten Afghanistan. Leipzig: VCH.

Sverchkov, L.M. 2008. The Kurganzol Fortress (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era). Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 14:12391.

. 2010. Die Grabungen im Fort Kurgansol im Sden Usbekistansneue Daten zur Geschichte Zentralasiens am Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. In Alexander des Grosse und die ffnung der Welt: Asiens Kulturen im wandel, edited by S. Hansen, A. Wieczorek, and M. Tellenbach, 14554. Mannheim: Schnell and Steiner.

Veuve, S. 1987. Fouilles dA Khanoum. Vol. 6, Le gymnase. Mmoires de la Dlgation archologique franaise en Afghanistan 30. Paris: De Boccard.



Date post:	05-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangdan
View:	222 times
Download:	4 times

The Spatial Organization of Ai Khanoum, a Greek City in Afghanistan

Documents