mairs_2012_social_imaginaries-libre.pdf

8/11/2019 Mairs_2012_Social_Imaginaries-libre.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mairs2012socialimaginaries-librepdf 1/18

THE HELLENISTIC FAR EAST: FROM THE OIKOUMENE TO

THE COMMUNITY

Rachel Mairs

COMMUNITIES IN THE HELLENISTIC FAR EAST

The Hellenistic world was an arena for the formation of new communities Ð real

and imagined Ð and redefinition of old ones. Recent scholarship has offered many

approaches to how one should conceptualise these communities, the circumstanc-

es of their formation, their internal dynamics and their external relations. In this

paper, my general aim will be to examine the social practices and cultural land-

scapes of one particular region of the Hellenistic world, the ÔHellenistic Far EastÕ.

This ÔSiberia of the Hellenistic worldÕ1 was situated at the political and cultural

margins of the o iko umene, and modern scholarly analysis has focussed most fre-

quently on its internal cultural diversity, and the vibrant influences it incorporated,

not just from the Greek world, but from the cultures and societies of the Iranian

world, Near East, Central Asia and India. In what follows, I seek to identify some

of the things which bound the Hellenistic Far East together, and explore how these

diverse influences came together to create a whole.

My partiality to the word ÔcommunityÕ derives, of course, from Benedict An-

dersonÕs dissection of modern nationalism as the making of Ôimagined communi-

tiesÕ.2 Although I will not always phrase it as such, my goal in this paper is, how-

ever, to see what might be gained by searching for a Ôsocial imaginaryÕ in the Hel-

lenistic Far East. I take my working definition of the Ôsocial imaginaryÕ from

Charles TaylorÕs Mo dern So cial Imaginaries: Ôthe ways people imagine their so-cial existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them

and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper norma-

tive notions and images that underlie these expectationsÕ.3

My discussion in general will be light on theory, or at least on explicit refer-

ence to and quotation from modern theoretical and methodological works. Part of

1 Rawlinson 1909, 23.

2 Anderson 1991. I should make it clear that I am not proposing any kind of ÔGraeco-Bactrian

nationalismÕ.3 Taylor 2004, 23.



2 KT links

my aim in this is to avoid too much duplication or repetition of discussions else-

where in this volume. Although I use theoretical terms and tropes rarely, I do not

dismiss them, and I do not use them lightly. It is also my view that the Hellenistic

world is capable of being a generator and creative adapter as well as a ÔconsumerÕ

of theory, and that active Ð two-way Ð dialogue with the social sciences is to be

fostered. To these ends, I shall briefly introduce a few wider points and concepts

within which my arguments should be situated.

I would like to put some emphasis on the cognitive spaces in between identity

and its articulation. Identities operate on both a macro and a micro level, from an

overarching individual or communal ÔidentityÕ, to the various social, cultural, eth-

nic, gender, or sexual ÔidentitiesÕ by which people may define themselves or be

defined by others. Cognitively and rhetorically, such identities also function at

multiple levels. They may be articulated publicly, or articulated privately. They

may be consciously imagined, felt (but below the level at which one can even putit into words to oneself), or they may be something subconscious which comes

forth into conscious thought and expression only under particular circumstances.

Such circumstances may arise when a person or community are confronted with

different ideals and ways of doing things, which provoke them to define and artic-

ulate the criteria of group membership. But these kinds of reformulations or reifi-

cations of identities are constructed around certain understandings that predate the

oppositional situation or context.

One of the conceptual advantages of the Ôsocial imaginaryÕ, in my view, is

therefore that it does not have to work at the level of conscious speech or thought.

As Taylor notes, ÔHumans operated with a social imaginary, well before they ever

got into the business of theorizing about themselvesÕ.4 The ancient Greeks, ofcourse, loved nothing better than to theorise about themselves. But in the Hellen-

istic world, we must be particularly sensitive to the distinction between our theo-

ries about them, and their own.5 The archaeological evidence from the city of Ai

Khanoum, which I have discussed at greater length elsewhere,6 and revisit below,

provides at least one good example of an institution which scholars describe in

one way, with reference to its architectural features and affinities (the ÔTemple

with indented nichesÕ, with ÔMesopotamianÕ influence), but which locals will have

described in others, which better matched their concept of this institution and its

position in the life of their community.

I am not suggesting that we can identify or reconstruct, from the available ar-

chaeological and textual evidence, a shared and clearly articulated theory of what

it meant to be ÔGraeco-BactrianÕ (I use the term purely for the purposes of illustra-

tion). What I think we can glean from this evidence is some idea of what social

and cultural practices were accepted, and within the realms of the familiar, for

inhabitants of the Hellenistic Far East. These may or may not have been con-

sciously understood or expressed, but we do have some evidence that the way in

4 Taylor 2004, 26.

5 Mairs 2011b, 186.

6 Mairs forthcoming.



KT rechts 3

which at least one ÔGreekÕ community of Central Asia thought of themselves was

very different from how they appeared to their supposed Greek compatriots. This

confrontation is played out in the notorious episode of the massacre of the

Branchidai by Alexander the Great and his army:7

While the king was pursuing Bessus, they arrived at a little town. It was inhabited by the

Branchidae; they had in former days migrated from Miletus by order of Xerxes, when he was

returning from Greece, and had settled in that place, because to gratify Xerxes they had vio-

lated the temple which is called the Didymeion. They had not ceased to follow the customs of

their native land, but they were already bilingual, having gradually degenerated from their

original language through the influence of a foreign tongue (mo res patrii nondum exo leve-

rant: sed iam bilingues erant, paulatim a do mestico externo sermo ne degeneres). Therefore

they received Alexander with great joy and surrendered their city and themselves. He ordered

the Milesians who were serving with him to be called together. They cherished a hatred of

long standing against the race ( gens) of the Branchidae. Therefore the king allowed to thosewho had been betrayed free discretion as to the Branchidae, whether they preferred to re-

member the injury or their common origin. Then, since their opinions varied, he made known

to them that he himself would consider what was best to be done. On the following day when

the Branchidae met him, he ordered them to come along with him, and when they had

reached the city, he himself entered the gate with a light-armed company; the phalanx he or-

dered to surround the walls of the town and at a given signal to pillage the city, which was a

haunt of traitors, and to kill the inhabitants to a man. The unarmed wretches were butchered

everywhere, and the cruelty could not be checked either by community of language (com-

mercium linguae) or by the draped olive branches and prayers of the suppliants. At last, in or-

der that the walls might be thrown down, their foundations were undermined, so that no ves-

tige of the city might survive. As for their woods also and their sacred groves, they not only

cut them down, but even pulled out the stumps, to the end that, since even the roots were

burned out, nothing but a desert waste and sterile ground might be left. If this had been de-

signed against the actual authors of the treason, it would seem to have been a just vengeance

and not cruelty; as it was, their descendents expiated the guilt of their forefathers, although

they themselves had never seen Miletus, and so could not have betrayed it to Xerxes.8

The two sides had very different impressions and expectations of this same

encounter. Alexander and his army were quickest to recognise the actions the

Branchidai had taken which set them beyond the pale of collective Hellenism. The

Branchidai had betrayed their fellow Greeks and aided the Persians, placing them-

selves on the wrong side of the most potent and emotive self-other divide of all.9

Furthermore, despite maintaining their ancestral customs in Central Asia, they had

ÔdegeneratedÕ into a state of bilingualism. It is perhaps significant that this degen-

eration does not amount to a complete abandonment of the Greek language. The

point is that their residual Greekness is tainted by contact with a non-Greek lan-

guage, and that they have shown a willingness to adopt this language in the same

way as they chose to betray Didyma to the Persians.

7 Parke 1985; Hammond 1998.

8 Curt. 7.5.28-35 (trans. Rolfe 1946).

9 See, for example, the seminal study of Hall 1989.



4 KT links

The Greeks therefore perceived the Branchidai as having transgressed against

the core values of the Greek community. The Branchidai, on the other hand,

viewed themselves and AlexanderÕs army as common members of this communi-

ty. Their eagerness to welcome Alexander and his army was based on the errone-

ous assumption, not just that they subscribed to the same shared values and ideas,

but that they would be recognised as sharing in them. The tragic consequences of

this misunderstanding illustrate the stark contrast which may exist between an

individual or communityÕs concept of their own identity, and that of outsiders.

As much as anything, of course, Curtius relates this episode as an anecdote

about AlexanderÕs brutality, his rashness and drive to action, even when the Mile-

sians themselves were divided about what should be done with the Branchidai.

Not only does Alexander massacre the population, but he deliberately and me-

thodically destroys the whole fabric of the city, the surrounding countryside, and

the inhabitantsÕ holy places. As Curtius wryly notes, what Alexander has in factdone is to destroy the Branchidai descent-community which has made a life for

itself in Central Asia, not the original traitors.

My subjects in this paper are not the Branchidai, however, but the descend-

ents of these very same soldiers of the army of Alexander in Central Asia who

annihilated them and their city. There is a certain irony in the fact that the de-

stroyers of the Branchidai in effect ÔbecameÕ them. The Greek-ruled kingdoms of

the Hellenistic Far East which grew out of AlexanderÕs garrisons and city founda-

tions maintained Greek language and culture, but they also Ð from both ancient

and some modern perspectives Ð ÔdegeneratedÕ.

I shall introduce material from the Hellenistic Far East as a whole, but my fo-

cus will be on the Greek kingdom of Bactria. Bactria was nominally ruled by theSeleukids until the middle of the third century BCE, when the Diodotid dynasty

established an independent state.10

Around the turn of the third to the second cen-

tury BCE, Demetrios I and his successors undertook military campaigns into

north-western India. A patchwork of Indo-Greek states survived, producing their

own coinage, until around the turn of the Common Era. The Graeco-Bactrian

kingdom itself, however, fell victim to a fatal combination of dynastic conflict,

foreign wars and nomadic invasions in the 140s BCE.11

Although the kings of the Hellenistic Far East appear only very rarely in

Greek and Latin historical sources, their coinage has long been the subject of

scholarly interest, and new archaeological excavations in the twentieth century Ð

especially at the city of Ai Khanoum Ð have given us a better picture of the mate-

rial culture of the region in the Hellenistic period than had long been thought pos-

sible. Alfred Foucher, the first director of the DŽlŽgatio n ArchŽo lo gique Fran-

•aise en Afghanistan, who excavated without much success at the Bactrian capital

of Bactra in the 1920s, reluctantly dismissed the notion of a materially distinct

10 Holt 1999.

11 Described in the greatest detail Ð which in ancient histories of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom

does not generally amount to much Ð and with the greatest insight by Just. Epit . 41.6.1-5.



KT rechts 5

ÔGreekÕ Bactria as a mirage.12 We now know that Hellenistic Bactria was not a

mirage after all, but that does not mean that we are necessarily any closer to un-

derstanding it.

The material record from the Hellenistic Far East displays great diversity in

its influences, with stylistic traits, religious practices and even political institutions

with their origins in the Mediterranean world, the Near East, India and Central

Asia. These influences are the product of a tumultuous political history. Bactria

and adjacent regions of Central Asia were controlled, with greater or lesser de-

grees of success, by the Achaemenids, by Alexander the Great, and by his politi-

cal heirs, whether the Seleukids or local dynasties of Greek descent. Population

movements accompanied these conquests Ð especially the Greek military colonies

left by Alexander Ð and BactriaÕs history of outside domination and colonisation

is very visible in its material culture. This cultural interaction and diversity is, to

modern analysis, the most striking feature of the material record of HellenisticBactria. The region has however, often suffered from being reduced to the some-

what schizophrenic sum of these influences, without sufficient attention being

devoted to the organic whole Ð the Bactrian polity and community Ð which these

diverse influences combined to create. A further issue is that such diverse cultural

contributions to the social and cultural entity that was Hellenistic Bactria have

tended to be treated in sense of passive influence, rather than active engagement:

the instrumental adoption and manipulation of material and practices.

How, then to move away from isolating the cultural components of Graeco-

Bactrian culture and their various sources, towards developing an idea of what it

meant to be an inhabitant of this region in the Hellenistic period, and how this

cultural and social milieu functioned in and of itself? My interest here is in howthe creation and assertion of these kinds of identities worked in Hellenistic Bac-

tria: to gain some idea of the nature of the Bactrian Ôsocial imaginaryÕ or Ôimag-

ined communityÕ.

What follows is a series of suggestions for arenas in which we might try to see

Hellenistic Bactria qua Hellenistic Bactria: the ways in which diverse cultural

influences were incorporated and made socially meaningful; and the common

practices and material forms which made Bactria Bactria and Bactrians Bactri-

ans.13 Can we propose any ÔmarkersÕ, any diagnostic criteria, for a Hellenistic

Bactrian culture? When we examine the architecture, urban scheme and material

culture of an archaeological site in the region, what specific features can we iden-

tify which it shares with other contemporary Bactrian sites, but not with the more

distant settlements and cultures to which it is usually compared? I suggest a num-

ber of ways in which we can use the textual and archaeological evidence to bind

Hellenistic Bactria together, as a community, rather than pick it apart, as a sum of

12 Foucher and Bazin-Foucher 1942-1947, 73-75, 310; Bernard 2007.

13 I use ÔBactriaÕ and ÔBactriansÕ here in an essentially geographical sense, to refer to the culture

and inhabitants of Bactria in the Hellenistic period. As I shall go on to discuss, ÔBactrianÕ is

among many ethnic descriptors which we have, as yet, no evidence were actually used by the

populations of Hellenistic Bactria themselves.



KT rechts 7

ethnic descriptors, and if so, what kind. ÔGreekÕ and ÔBactrianÕ were most proba-

bly socially meaningful categories, whether or not the same administrative hier-

archisation applied as in Egypt. But we should also suspect that important subdi-

visions existed within these categories and that, depending upon context, an indi-

vidual might identify strongly with a more localised regional or class- or clan-

based identity. Among the Greek names known from Ai Khanoum, there are cer-

tainly some suggestively regional Greek names, such as Triballos, dedicator of an

inscription in the gymnasium, who bears the name of a Thracian tribe, or Kineas,

in whose shrine the inscription of the Delphic maxims was set up, for whom Louis

Robert proposes a Thessalian origin.18

In PolybiosÕ account of the siege of Bactra by the Seleukid king Antiochos III

in 206 BCE, in fact, a Greek of Bactria is depicted as playing upon both of these

levels of Hellenic identity.19 The Graeco-Bactrian king Euthydemos makes com-

mon cause with Antiochos by invoking the barbarian threat: menacing nomadhordes were poised to overwhelm them both. In negotiations with AntiochosÕ en-

voy Teleas, however, Euthydemos appeals to their common Greek regional identi-

ty Ð both men are Magnesians Ð rather than the classic Greek-barbarian opposi-

tion. This episode takes place more than a century after the initial military settle-

ment of Bactria by Alexander the Great, which, if EuthydemosÕ claim to a Mag-

nesian identity is accurately represented by Polybios, therefore suggests that

regional Greek ethnic descriptors continued to be used in Bactria among subse-

quent generations of locally-born Greeks. The fact that Heliodoros is described as

ÔTaxilanÕ may further suggest, however, that such identities evolved over time,

and that local hometowns also became important.

Somewhat predictably, the ethnic descriptor ÔBactrianÕ ("#$%&'(),"*$%&'*+,), Bactrianus) is extremely rare in Greek and Latin inscriptions and

documentary sources, and we have no attestation of it in the sparse documentary

material from within Bactria itself. The word does not occur at all in papyri from

Egypt. A search of Latin inscriptions in the Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss-Slaby

yields only a camelus o ptimus bactrianus, listed in the Aezani copy of the Diocle-

tianÕs Prices Edict.20 An inscription from Pergamon of the reign of Hadrian men-

tions %&'$(#) *+ ,&(-./[ &01, (2 34$ ]0) 567(&80),21 but this is in an historical

account and is in any case muddled. The reference is to the fourth century BCE

Armenian ruler Orontes son of Artasyros, who captured Pergamon and rebelled

against Artaxerxes III. He was not a Bactrian, and the confusion stems from the

fact that his father had been satrap of Bactria.

The only ÔrealÕ Bactrian designated as such in a Greek inscription is

Hyspasines son of Mithroaxos, whose name appears in inscriptions from Delos of

the first half of the second century BCE. These record "40$(0) 9&0(0µ: ;µ9"8$<=>?8, @.9-.>$01 A8<&06B01 5-7(&8-$0C D$6<=µ- Ôthe upper part of a

18 Robert 1968, 419f., 432-437.

19 Polyb. 11.34.6-14.

20 Crawford and Reynolds 1977; 1979.

21 I.Pergamo n 613, ll. 4/5 (= OGIS 264).



8 KT links

lion on a plinth, the dedication of Hyspasines, son of Mithroaxos, a BactrianÕ (179

BCE).22 Over a quarter of a century later, we find an ;7(/9[ ? ]µ- ;[µ 9"8$<=>?8?]@&7-$0C 71$'), D$6<=µ- @.9-8.>$01 5-7(&8-$0C (Ôrelief figure of a Hyr-

kanian dog on a plinth, the dedication of Hyspaisines [ sic!] the BactrianÕ; 153/152

BCE).23

The date of these dedications Ð the first half of the second century BCE Ð

makes them especially interesting, because they were made during the period of

the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom. Hyspasines and his father have Iranian names, so it

appears that ÔBactrianÕ in this case refers to a Bactrian of indigenous descent, not

a member of the Greek settler community. Beyond this, we are in the realms of

speculation, and we do not known what brought Hyspasines to Delos Ð which was

at this period a dynamic trading community of Greeks and Italians.24

The meta-

morphosis of the lion into a Hyrkanian dog may, however, offer some insight into

what the people of Delos understood a ÔBactrianÕ to be. The piece itself may wellhave deteriorated beyond immediate recognition over time, but the new Ð very

specific Ð label ÔHyrkanian dogÕ betrays some assumptions about Bactrians and

their ways. Cicero, drawing on earlier writers, states that in Hyrkania dogs were

kept to devour the dead.25 Strabo, reporting the account of Onesicritus, claims that

in Bactria, until the coming of Alexander, the old and the sick were ÔeuthanisedÕ

by being thrown alive to dogs kept expressly for that purpose.26 Cicero and Strabo

were, of course, writing long after the dates of the Delian inscriptions in question,

but did ethnographic snippets of this sort influence someone on Delos in interpret-

ing the BactrianÕs dedication as a ÔHyrkanian dogÕ? The choice to describe

Hyspasines son of Mithroaxos as a ÔBactrianÕ may or may not have been his own,

but the curious incident of the dog on the plinth indicates, perhaps, that he wasalso subject to local GreeksÕ assumptions about him and his identity.

Given the problems and pitfalls in trying to establish the ÔidentityÕ even of

those very few inhabitants of the Hellenistic Far East who are given explicit eth-

nic descriptors in our written sources, we should proceed with extreme caution in

ÔidentifyingÕ those for whom we have none. The problem of emic versus etic defi-

nitions is particularly acute Ð and by ÔeticÕ I refer not just to the perspectives of

ancient outsiders, but to those of modern commentators. The case of S- phytos,

son of Naratos, commissioner of one of the most recently published Greek in-

scriptions from the Hellenistic Far East, should be taken as a cautionary tale.

The S- phytos inscription27 recounts, in the first person, the story of S

- phytos,

son of Naratos, who narrates in highly literary Greek verse how he restored the

22 I.DŽlo s 442 B, ll.108/109 (= Canali De Rossi 2004, no. 320); cf. 443 Bb, l. 33; 454 A, l.7;

also restored in 455 Bd, l. 7.23

I.DŽlo s 1432 Aa II, ll. 26/27 (= Canali De Rossi 2004, no. 321); cf. 1450 A, l. 136, which

omits HyspasinesÕ name.24

See e.g. Adams 2002 on these groups and their inscriptions.25

Cic. Tusc. 1.45.108.26

Strabo 9.11.3.27

Bernard, Pinault and Rougemont 2004 (= SEG 54.1568 = Merkelbach and Stauber 2005, 17-

19 no. 105).



KT rechts 9

fortunes Ð and the tomb Ð of his once great family. S- phytos puts emphasis on his

cultivation of the D&=(E of Apollo and the Muses. He gives himself no description

other than the patronymic Ôson of NaratosÕ, which is repeated in an acrostich.

Several attributes of the inscription, however, have been taken as suggestive of his

ethnic background, and the identity which he claimed for himself. First, the prov-

enance of the inscription. No details of the circumstances of its discovery have

been made public, but it appears to have been established to the editorsÕ satisfac-

tion that it came from Kandahar, ancient Alexandria in Arachosia. In the second

century BCE, the period of the inscription, Arachosia had been brought back into

the Hellenistic political fold after the Graeco-Bactrian conquests south of the Hin-

du Kush, but in the third century had been part of the (Indian) Maurya Empire.

This brings us to the second point, the identification of S- phytosÕ name and that

of his father Naratos as Indian in derivation, from Subh.ti and N!rada.28 Third,

S- phytosÕ references to his travels, which contain an appropriate Homeric allu-sion, consonant with his demonstration of his good Greek education (l. 11: ;9F ;µ90&>#8.8$ GH$ =G) I.(=- 90""J). The temptation to speculate about where

these commercial travels took him Ð west to the Hellenistic kingdoms, north to

Central Asia or even China, south to India - is almost too great.

My point is not that efforts to discover S- phytosÕ family background Ð or to

contrast a proposed Indian origin with his espousal of Greek high culture Ð are

essentially misguided, nor that any of the hypotheses formed about his identity are

ÔwrongÕ as such. But I would like to propose a complementary way of engaging

with this inscription, by viewing it, and the man who claims its authorship, as

products of a local community at Alexandria in Arachosia. ArachosiaÕs history

from the late fourth through to the second century BCE followed a trajectory quitedifferent from that of other regions of the Hellenistic Far East, passing between

various political masters, Persian, Greek and Indian.29

In contrast to Hellenistic

Bactria, it had its closest affinities, geographically, culturally and politically, to

the Indian world, despite its settlement with Greek military colonists under Alex-

ander, and the continued production of Greek inscriptions.30 Whether or not he

was in addition a ÔGreekÕ or an ÔIndianÕ, or whichever of these identities he did or

did not claim for himself, or have applied to him by others, S- phytosÕ home city

was Alexandria in Arachosia. His homecoming from his travels was to a city

where his family had a long and illustrious history, although they had since fallen

on hard times (ll. 1-2:!"#$%

!µK3

7071K$

!!"#$%&'

*Lµ-(M

!!"#$ / !

) !µ-N0)

A08&K$ !B'"=.=$ (&86*0)). He worked to restore his familyÕs reputation and

property, and concludes with the hope that his sons and grandsons will inherit the

fruits of his labours (ll. 19-20: 0!(?) 0!$ O#"?(!

!"# !!!"µ#$#

!"#$%&'!(#$)* / "!!"# $!!"#$ % !0 ! 70$ !N08=$ !µ0C). There is a very public aspect

to all of this: S- phytos becomes celebrated (!µ$#(')), Ôshows himselfÕ on his

return, to the joy of his well-wishers, and imagines his stele ÔspeakingÕ to passers-

28

Pinault 2005.29

Bernard 2005; Mairs 2011b.30

Canali De Rossi 2004, nos. 290-298.



10 KT links

by (ll. 13-14, 18). In his inscription, S- phytosÕ greatest concern is in fact the opin-

ion of his own community, that of Alexandria in Arachosia.

THE ÔGIFT OF THE OXUSÕ: THEOPHORIC NAMES AND RELIGIOUS

CULT

Herodotos, famously, referred to Egypt as the Ôgift of the river (Nile)Õ. 31 The river

Oxus, and the many smaller rivers which flowed down into it from the surround-

ing Pamir and Hindu Kush mountains, were important to Bactria in many ways: as

sources of water for irrigation; as transportation routes, whether by water or fol-

lowing the valleys carved by the river; and also symbolically. To return to theGreek settlements north of the Hindu Kush, the first marker of ÔGraeco-

BactriannessÕ I would like to propose is the use of theophoric Oxus-names, per-

sonal names derived from the river Oxus. These enjoy a great popularity at all

periods for which we have written evidence, from the period of the Persian Em-

pire, through Graeco-Bactrian rule, into the period of the Kushan Empire. A col-

lection of Achaemenid Aramaic administrative documents, which have been sub-

ject to only a preliminary publication, contain names such as Ha/avax/u Ôadherent

of the true Vax/u (Oxus)Õ, Vax/ubandaka Ôservant of Vax/uÕ, Vax/uvahi/ta Ôad-

herent of Vax/u the bestÕ and Vax/ud!ta Ôgiven by Vax/uÕ, as well as other names

resonant of Bactrian places or gods.32

Among the local chiefs who resisted Alex-

ander the Great was Oxyartes, father of Roxana.33 In economic texts written on jars from the Treasury at Ai Khanoum we find the names Oxeboakes and Ox-

ybazos.34

In the period of the Kushan Empire, texts in the Bactrian language yield

such names as Oakhshobordo Ôreceived from the OxusÕ, Oakhshogolo (meaning

uncertain), Oakhshoiamsho Ôdedicated to the Oxus and Yamsh(?)Õ, Oakhsomarego

Ôslave of the OxusÕ and Oakhshooanindo Ôvictorious through the OxusÕ.35 I make

no assumptions about the ethnic identities, descent or cultural milieu of the bear-

ers of these names, beyond noting that they are a distinctive feature of the Bactri-

an onomastikon at all the periods with which we are here concerned.

The river Oxus was worshipped as a god, as we know from the excavations at

Takht-i Sangin, on the right bank of the Oxus in what is now Tajikistan, a site

which had a large and impressive temple complex.36 At the Temple of the Oxus,

strikingly, diverse forms of artistic influence, language and religious practice

31 Hdt. 2.5.1.

32 Shaked 2004, 24.

33 AlexanderÕs siege of Oxyartes at the ÔSogdian rockÕ and his subsequent marriage to Roxane

are related by Arr. Anab. 4.18-19.34

Canali De Rossi 2004, nos. 324-325, 346.35

Sims-Williams 2010, nos. 321-325.36

Litvinskiy and Pichikiyan 1981; for full bibliography, see Litvinskiy and Pichikiyan 1981;

Mairs 2011a, 25.



KT rechts 11

come together to create an idiosyncratically Bactrian place of worship. In a Greek

inscription on a miniature altar, topped with a statuette of a Silenus-like figure, a

man named Atros-kes Ð an Iranian name Ð makes a dedication to the god Oxus.37

Some of the votive objects from the temple bear images of gods or other super-

natural creatures from the Greek and non-Greek world associated with water.38

The name of the Oxus also appears in Greek letters on a more recently discovered

fragmentary stone piece.39

The cult of the Oxus is only part of the Bactrian religious mosaic. At the tem-

ple at Takht-i Sangin, there is evidence Ð hotly debated Ð for the presence of a

Zoroastrian-style fire cult.40 The main temple at Ai Khanoum reveals diverse

forms of religious practice even within a single sanctuary.41

What is lacking, how-

ever, in the religious architecture of the region in the Hellenistic period is any-

thing which we might describe as stereotypically ÔGreekÕ. In fact, the strongest

connections are to traditions of Near Eastern temple architecture, and such con-nections between Central Asia and the Near East are of considerable antiquity. In

one distinctive feature of the Ai Khanoum temples Ð the decoration of temple fa-

cades with three-stepped niches Ð it is possible to look for local analogies in the

Bronze Age Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex ( BMAC ), as well as in

contemporary and later architecture from the Near East. Superficially similar

Ôblind windowÕ features exist, for example, at the BMAC temple at Gonur in Mar-

giana.42 My point is not necessarily that the Ai Khanoum temples are the descend-

ents of the BMAC temples, more that the local context can yield potential analo-

gies for the material culture of Hellenistic Bactria, and that it is methodologically

justified, even important, for us to look for them there in addition to contexts geo-

graphically distant from it. The diversity of Bactrian culture is the product of par-ticipation in Near, Central and South Asian systems of interaction, dating to well

before the Hellenistic or even Achaemenid periods.

CITYSCAPES

The site of Ai Khanoum has attracted scholarly attention Ð and in recent years

even popular interest, through exhibitions43

and television documentaries44

Ð for

two rather contradictory things. First of all, its apparently aberrant ÔGreeknessÕ in

Central Asia45: features such as the presence of Greek inscriptions, such specialist

37 Canali De Rossi 2004, no. 311; Litvinskii, Vinogradov and Pichikyan 1985.

38 Litvinskij and Pi0ikian 1995; Bernard 1987.

39 Canali De Rossi 2004, no. 312; Drujinina 2001, 263.

40 On religious practices at the temple, see the discussion in Boyce and Grenet 1991, 173-181.

41 Francfort 1984; Mairs forthcoming.

42 Sarianidi and Puschnigg 2002, 77-79.

43 Cambon and Jarrige 2006; Hiebert and Cambon 2008.

44 Lecuyot and Ishizawa 2006.

45 Bernard 1967; 1982.



12 KT links

Greek cultural and social institutions as the theatre and gymnasium, and the use of

artistic motifs and architectural elements such as Corinthian capitals which derive

from Classical models. Paradoxically Ð although this in fact represents an evolu-

tion in the excavatorsÕ view of the site - it has also become known for its juxtapo-

sition of the Greek and the non-Greek: the placement of these same very overtly

ÔGreekÕ elements in a more culturally and artistically mixed whole. We find a

palace complex with analogies in Near Eastern, and specifically Persian palace

architecture (as I shall go on to discuss), temples with Near Eastern plans and fea-

tures, such as their stepped podiums and niched fa•ade decoration (as I have al-

ready noted), and houses which do not conform to any supposedly ÔGreekÕ model.

Although it is a worthwhile exercise to pick apart these constituent influences,

much of our inclination and ability to do so, I would argue, derives from modern

scholarly programmes of training and disciplinary boundaries. In the combination

and juxtaposition of different motifs and styles in the architecture and urban planof Ai Khanoum, we, as modern scholars, are in fact poorly equipped to identify

the foreign and aberrant. How can we say that the forms which we perceive as

ÔGreekÕ or ÔPersianÕ or ÔMesopotamianÕ were regarded as such, named as such, by

the population of Ai Khanoum, and the populations of Bactria as a whole? How

much of it had been naturalised into a familiar local way of doing things, at least

by the cityÕs own inhabitants and in the generations following the initial Graeco-

Macedonian settlement? A local may not have known anything of the different

cultural traditions, far away in the Mediterranean or Near East, of which his cityÕs

visual culture was stylistically composed. Even if he did, these might not have

been foremost in his mind as he went about his daily business. On a fairly funda-

mental level, I would therefore argue, Ai Khanoum, in all its apparently contradic-tory diversity, has to make sense because to its inhabitants it did make sense. It is

our responsibility to find a way of viewing it as a community.

DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE

Another area in which I would suggest we can see a distinctive Hellenistic Bactri-

an way of doing things is in domestic architecture. The dissimilarity that has

sometimes been remarked between the plans of the private houses and residential

units within public buildings at Ai Khanoum and anything we might recognise as

typical of the Greek or Mediterranean world is of dubious cultural or social signif-

icance.46 It is debatable how much we can tell from the floorplan of a house alone.

Certainly, the houses at Ai Khanoum, despite their supposedly non-Greek plan,

contain bath installations with mosaics, something very stereotypically Greek.47

Whatever cultural significance we invest this with, however, there are some

common features of Hellenistic Bactrian domestic architecture which we might

46 On the plan of Graeco-Bactrian houses, see, for example, Francfort 1977.

47 Bernard 1975, 173-180; 1976, 291.



14 KT links

lines? Might climate be a factor Ð would nests of encircling corridors enable a

building to retain heat or keep it cool in the regionÕs continental climate? It is cer-

tainly within the local Bactrian context that we should look for the answer.

HELLENISTIC BACTRIA AS HELLENISTIC BACTRIA

We must, of course, be wary of geographical determinism or cultural assumptions

in our approach to the shared material and cultural features which, apparently,

make Hellenistic Bactria, Hellenistic Bactria Ð a place which is bound together by

these common elements, while at the same time demonstrably having social struc-

tures and aspects of its material culture which ultimately originate in distant re-gions such as the Mediterranean littoral. As I have noted with regard to domestic

architecture, climate is an important factor in the development of distinctive local

ways of doing things. The land, its physical geography and climate produce conti-

nuities over time in matters such as canal irrigation, the close interaction of settled

and pastoral economies and communities, and even in the most small-scale and

mundane elements of the administration. In eastern Bactria, canal irrigation dates

back to the Bronze Age, and networks and even individual canals are maintained

over centuries.53 This indicates both the organisation and mobilisation of labour

and resources, and some continuity in management. We have only a very few Ar-

amaic, Greek and Bactrian administrative documents from the region, but these

too offer tantalising glimpses of the ways in which new regimes might utilise theexisting administration, who provided the most efficient and most knowledgeable

apparatus for maximising revenue from the land and may have helped to minimise

any Ôshock of the newÕ and potential unrest. Among the Aramaic documents from

Bactria is one which relates precisely to this kind of regime change. The docu-

ment in question is dated to a regnal year of Alexander, but otherwise retains the

language, scribal personnel, administrative practices and preoccupation with

mundane everyday affairs such as the allocation of barley, of earlier documents.54

In Bactria, it is business as usual. The notion of a Bactrian ko ine may also be use-

ful in assessing continuities in material culture in the periods before and after the

Graeco-Bactrian kingdom.

In the preceding discussion, I have intentionally downplayed the tension

which might be implied in the juxtaposition, in the material culture of Hellenistic

Bactria, of styles and motifs originating from different geographical regions and

cultures. In north-western India, in the Indo-Greek states established in the after-

math of the Graeco-Bactrian expansion south of the Hindu Kush around the turn

of the third-second centuries BCE, we find some still more striking examples of

such juxtapositions, and these we can say with greater certainty are the product of

53 See the discussion in Francfort and Lecomte 2002.

54 Sims-Williams 2000, no. A17; Shaked 2004, 17f. with fig. 2 (Doc. C4): 8 June 324 BCE.



KT rechts 15

a deliberate political policy.55 The two sides of an Indo-Greek coin Ð such as those

of HeliodorosÕ king, Antialkidas Ð may depict Greek and Indian deities and reli-

gious symbolism, use Greek and Prakrit, and refer to a single Greek-named king

as both basileus and mah!r ! jah.56 Here, perhaps, we can bring the theoretical

models and approaches of modern postcolonial studies to bear more directly than I

have argued elsewhere is possible for Bactria.57 The very conscious cultural bilin-

gualism or hybridity of the images, languages, and political and religious symbol-

ism of Indo-Greek coins, says something potentially interesting about the abilities

of the regionÕs populations to move between cultural and linguistic spheres, and to

respond to being addressed in different visual and linguistic ko ines. In Hellenistic

and Roman Egypt, we know that such cultural mobility might be very fluid, and

perceived as essentially unproblematic by those who participated in it.58

So here

too, as with the perhaps less self-conscious hybridisation of Bactrian architecture

and cityscapes, any impression we may gain of cultural contradiction, schizophre-nia or hypocrisy is a false impression, proceeding from present-day disciplinary

boundaries.

CONCLUSION

As a solution to the general ÔS- phytos ProblemÕ in Hellenistic Far East scholar-

ship, the replacement of the comforting specifics of an ethnic descriptor Ð Helio-

doros was a Greek, S- phytos was an Indian Ð with the altogether more unsettling

notion of a nameless, perhaps not even consciously articulated, sense of sharedlocal ways of being and doing, may not be regarded by all as a fair trade. It cer-

tainly provides little in the way of cognitive closure. I am not arguing, however,

that one should cease entirely to focus on the building blocks of the culture and

identities of the Hellenistic Far East, but rather that standing back and examining

the whole which these blocks come together to make may offer a perspective

closer to that of local, contemporary communities. In addition to the virtues of

adopting a more holistic perspective, I have further proposed some things which

Hellenistic Bactrian communities had in common with each other, but not without

outsiders of any stamp. I cannot prove that any of these common features I identi-

fy would have been perceived by the Hellenistic-period populations of Bactria as

being something they held in common, still less as constituting the core values,

institutions, and ways of doing things on which a Bactrian social imaginary or

imagined community was built. I do think, however, that some of these features

55 Coloru 2009, 195-208.

56 For some examples of AntialkidasÕ bilingual coinage, see Bopearachchi 1991, 95-97, 273-

279.57

Mairs 2011b.58

See e.g. Quaegebeur 1992 on dual naming in Egypt, and Boiy 2005 on a similar phenomenon

in Hellenistic Babylonia.



16 KT links

might have been so perceived, and that the common things which all inhabitants

of Bactria would have found familiar are as important an aspect of their culture as

the diverse influences they received, appropriated and reimagined from the world

beyond Bactria.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.N. 2002. ÒBilingualism at DelosÓ. In Bilingualism in Ancient So ciety: Language Co ntact

and the Written Text , eds. J.N. Adams, M. Janse, and S. Swain, 103-127. Oxford.

Anderson, B.R.O.G. 1991. Imagined Co mmunities: Reflectio ns o n the Origin and Spread o f

Natio nalism. 2nd

ed. London.

Bernard, P. 1967. ÒAi Khanoum on the Oxus: A Hellenistic City in Central AsiaÓ. PBA 53: 71-95. ÐÐÐ 1968. ÒTroisime campagne de fouilles ˆ A Khanoum en BactrianeÓ. CRAI 1968: 263-279.

ÐÐÐ 1969. ÒQuatrime campagne de fouilles ˆ A Khanoum (Bactriane)Ó. CRAI 1969: 313-355.

ÐÐÐ 1970. ÒCampagne de fouilles 1969 ˆ A Khanoum en AfghanistanÓ. CRAI 1970: 301-349.

ÐÐÐ 1974. ÒFouilles de A Khanoum (Afghanistan), campagnes de 1972 et 1973Ó. CRAI 1974:

280-308.

ÐÐÐ 1975. ÒCampagne de fouilles 1974 ˆ A Khanoum (Afghanistan)Ó. CRAI 1975: 167-197.

ÐÐÐ 1976. ÒCampagne de fouilles 1975 ˆ A Khanoum (Afghanistan)Ó. CRAI 1976: 287-322.

ÐÐÐ 1982. ÒAn Ancient Greek City in Central AsiaÓ. Scientific American 246: 126-135.

ÐÐÐ 1987. ÒLe Marsyas dÕApamŽe, lÕOxus et la colonisation sŽleucide en BactrianeÓ. Studia

Iranica 16: 103-115.

ÐÐÐ 2005. ÒHellenistic Arachosia: A Greek Melting Pot in ActionÓ. E&W 55: 13-34.

ÐÐÐ 2007. ÒLa mission dÕAlfred Foucher en AfghanistanÓ. CRAI 2007: 1797-1845.Bernard, P., G.-J. Pinault, and G. Rougemont 2004. ÒDeux nouvelles inscriptions grecques de

lÕAsie CentraleÓ. JS 2004: 227-356.

Boiy, T. 2005. ÒAkkadian-Greek Double Names in Hellenistic BabyloniaÓ. In Ethnicity in Ancient

Meso po tamia, ed. W.H. van Soldt, 47-60. Leiden.

Bopearachchi, O. 1991. Mo nnaies grŽco -bactriennes et indo -grecques: Catalo gue raiso nnŽ. Paris.

Boyce, M., and F. Grenet 1991. A Histo ry o f Zo ro astrianism. Vol. 3: Zo ro astrianism under

Macedo nian and Ro man Rule. Leiden.

Cambon, P., and J.-F. Jarrige, eds. 2006. Afghanistan, les trŽso rs retro uvŽs: Co llectio ns du musŽe

natio nal de Kabo ul . Paris.

Canali De Rossi, F. 2004. Iscrizio ni dello Estremo Oriente Greco : un reperto rio . Bonn.

Clarysse, W., and D.J. Thompson 2006. Co unting the Peo ple in Hellenistic Egypt . Vol. 2:

Histo rical Studies . Cambridge.

Coloru, O. 2009. Da Alessandro a Menandro : il regno greco di Battriana. Pisa/Rome.

Crawford, M.H., and J.M. Reynolds 1977. ÒThe Aezani Copy of the Prices EdictÓ. ZPE 26: 125-

151.

ÐÐÐ 1979. ÒThe Aezani Copy of the Prices EdictÓ. ZPE 34: 163-210.

Drujinina, A. 2001. ÒDie Ausgrabungen in Taxt-i Sang 1 n im Oxos-Tempelbereich (SŸd-

Tadzikistan). Vorbericht der Kampagnen 1998-1999Ó. ArchŠo lo gische Mitteilungen aus Iran

und Turan 33: 257-292.

Foucher, A., and E. Bazin-Foucher 1942-1947. La vieille ro ute de lÕInde de Bactres ˆ Taxila.

Paris.

Francfort, H.-P. 1977. "Le plan des maisons grŽco-bactriennes et le problme des structures de

type Ç megaron È en Asie Centrale et en Iran". In Le Plateau iranien et lÕAsie Centrale des



KT rechts 17

o rigines ˆ la co nqute islamique: Leurs relatio ns ˆ la lumi•re des do cuments archŽo lo giques,

ed. J. Deshayes, 267-280. Paris.

ÐÐÐ 1984. Fo uilles dÕA Khano um. Vol. 3: Le sanctuaire du temple ˆ niches indentŽes. Pt. 2: Les

trouvailles. Paris.Francfort, H.-P., and O. Lecomte 2002. ÒIrrigation et sociŽtŽ en Asie centrale des origines ˆ

lÕŽpoque achŽmŽnideÓ. Annales (HSS) 57: 625-663.

Hall, E. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self- Definitio n thro ugh Tragedy. Oxford.

Hammond, N.G.L. 1998. ÒThe Branchidae at Didyma and in SogdianaÓ. CQ 48: 339-344.

Hiebert, F., and P. Cambon, eds. 2008. Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures fro m the Natio nal Museum,

Kabul . Washington.

Holt, F.L. 1999. Thundering Zeus: The Making o f Hellenistic Bactria. Berkeley.

LaÕda, C. 2002. Fo reign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt . Leuven.

Lecuyot, G., and O. Ishizawa 2006. ÒNHK, Taisei, CNRS: A Franco-Japanese Collaboration for

the 3D Reconstruction of the Town of Ai Khanoum in AfghanistanÓ. In Virtual Retro spect

2005, eds. R. Vergniquex, and C. Delevoie, 121-124. Bordeaux.

Leriche, P. 1986. Fo uilles dÕA Khano um. Vol. 5: Les remparts et les mo numents associŽs. Paris.

Litvinskii, B.A., and K. Mukhitdinov 1969. Ò23456378 97:7;5<8 =>?@>37AB: (CD3EF

G>;D5?5@4>3)Ó. "#$%&'()* +,-%#.#/0* 1969: 160-178.

Litvinskii, B.A., Y.G. Vinogradov, and I.R. Pichikyan 1985. ÒH745I 24:7@7?> 5J K:>L> M?@> I

=8I8:37F N>?4:55Ó. 1%'&20( 3,%$2%4 5'&#,00 1985: 85-110.

Litvinskij, B.A. 1998. La civilisatio n de lÕAsie centrale antique. Rahden.

Litvinskij, B.A., and I.R. Pi0ikian 1995. ÒRiver-Deities of Greece Salute the God of the River

Oxus-Vaksh: Achelous and the HippocampessÓ. In In the Land o f the Grypho ns: Papers o n

Central Asian Archaeo lo gy in Antiquity, ed. A. Invernizzi, 129-149. Florence.

Litvinskiy, B.A., and I.R. Pichikiyan 1981. ÒThe Temple of the OxusÓ. JAS 113: 133-167.

Mairs, R. 2011a. The Archaeo lo gy o f the Hellenistic Far East: A Survey. Bactria, Central Asia and

the Indo -Iranian Borderlands, c. 300 BC Ð AD 100. Oxford.

ÐÐÐ 2011b. ÒThe Places in Between: Model and Metaphor in the Archaeology of Hellenistic

ArachosiaÓ. In Fr o m Pella to Gandhara: Hybridisatio n and Identity in the Art and Architecture o f the Hellenistic East , eds. A. Kouremenos, S. Chandrasekaran, and R. Rossi,

177-189. Oxford.

ÐÐÐ Forthcoming. ÒThe ÔTemple with Indented NichesÕ at Ai Khanoum: Ethnic and Civic Identity

in Hellenistic BactriaÓ. In Cults, Creeds and Co ntests: Religio n in the Po st-Classical City,

eds. R. Alston, O.M. van Nijf, and C. Williamson. Leuven.

Merkelbach, R., and J. Stauber 2005. Jenseits des Euphrates. Griechische Inschriften . Ein epigra-

phisches Lesebuch. Munich/Leipzig.

Mukhitdinov, K. 1968. Ò9736>:3EF ?I>:4>O P7:7;5<> =>?@>37AB:Ó. 56$%'&0* +()7%800

9):( ;)7<0('(#4 ""= . "%,0* #>?%'&$%22@- 2):( 3: 53.

Parke, H.W. 1985. ÒThe Massacre of the BranchidaeÓ. JHS 105: 59-68.

Pinault, G.-J. 2005. ÒRemarques sur les noms propres d'origine indienne dans la stle de

S™phytosÓ. In Afghanistan: Ancien carrefo ur entre lÕest et lÕo uest , eds. O. Bopearachchi, andM.-F. Boussac, 137-142. Turnhout.

Quaegebeur, J. 1992. ÒGreco-Egyptian Double Names as a Feature of a Bi-Cultural Society: The

Case P0.$=1) Q 7-R S&86*="T0)Ó. In Life in a Multi-Cultural So ciety: Egypt fro m Cambyses

to Co nstantine and Beyond , ed. J.H. Johnson, 265-272. Chicago.

Rawlinson, H.G. 1909. Bactria: Fro m the Earliest Times to the Extinctio n o f Bactrio -Greek Rule

in the Punjab. Bombay.

Robert, L. 1968. ÒDe Delphes ˆ lÕOxus: Inscriptions grecques nouvelles de la BactrianeÓ. CRAI

1968: 416-457.

Rolfe, J.C., ed. 1946. Quintus Curtius Rufus, with an English Translatio n by Jo hn C. Ro lfe.

Cambridge/London.



18 KT links

Salomon, R. 1998. Indian Epigraphy: A Guide t o the Study o f Inscriptio ns in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and

the Other Indo -Aryan Languages. New York/Oxford.

Sancisi-Weerderburg, H. 2001. ÒYaun! by the Sea and Across the SeaÓ. In Ancient Perceptio ns o f

Greek Ethnicity, ed. I. Malkin, 323-346. Washington.Sarianidi, V., and G. Puschnigg 2002. ÒThe Fortification and Palace of Northern GonurÓ. Iran 40:

75-87.

Shaked, S. 2004. Le satrape de Bactriane et so n go uverneur: Do cuments aramŽens du IV e s. avant

no tre •re pro venant de Bactriane. Paris.

Sims-Williams, N. 2000. Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan. Vol. 1: Legal and Eco-

nomic Documents. Oxford.

ÐÐÐ 2010. Bactrian Personal Names . Vienna.

Taylor, C. 2004. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham.