EIGHTEEN THE END OF THE OXUS CIVILIZATION

INTRODUCTION

The last centuries of existence of the Oxus Civilization have been described from the beginning as a time of decline without major material and cultural expressions (Masson and Sarianidi 1972: 137). Although poorly known due to a lack of research, this three-century period was until recently viewed as the “collapse” of the previous complex society that had spread in southern Central Asia, and was considered as unattractive for research (Luneau 2014). In addition, due to wide changes that occur, it is often perceived as a break in the cultural continuity of the Oxus Civilization.

This period may, however, be regarded otherwise (i.e., as a significant phase of transformation within a more or less preserved cultural frame), with the development of different models of social complexity, an optimization in the exploitation of the territory in connection with diverse economic systems and lifestyles, interactions between supposedly sedentary and mobile populations, and the gestation of peculiar beliefs and new symbolic practices.

This chapter presents a concise synthesis of the state of knowledge on the end of the Oxus Civilization. It brings new lights on diverse issues about the interpretation of this particular moment of sociocultural evolution and on the causes of transformations.

AN UNCLEAR CHRONOLOGY AND A PROBLEMATIC TERMINOLOGY

Central Asian prehistoric archaeology still faces many problems related to the chronology with several discrepancies and inconsistencies. First, the Bronze Age culture is not consensually defined, although the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) and Oxus Civilization appear to be increasingly considered as synonymous. If the term “BMAC” was first used to underscore the rather strong homogeneity over Bactria and Margiana during the so-called peak phase of this cultural entity (Sarianidi 1974; Hiebert 1994a; Kohl 2007; Salvatori 2016), it tends now to be used for the designation of this culture till the middle of the second millennium BC. The

Figure 18.1 Map of the main sites related to the Final Bronze Age in southern Central Asia.

term “Oxus Civilization” has been created to better inscribe this entity as a phenomenon similar to what happened in Middle Asian societies (Francfort 1984; Hiebert 1994b; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994, 2013; Salvatori 2008). At once, it emphasizes the processes and evolution of the archaeological features through time in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC.

The latest phase of the Oxus Civilization that is of our concern here is approximately positioned between 1800/1700 BC and 1500/1400 BC, when the Early Iron Age starts, according to radiocarbon dates from different areas of its distribution (for the main sites related to this period, see Figure 18.1; for the ^I4C dates see Luneau 2014: 272-277; see also the Appendix at the end of the volume).

A review of the available data underlines the imprecision of the regional periodization as well as great disparities in surveys and excavations. New programs of surveys have been recently carried out,¹ but many sites are still poorly or not yet excavated. In general, archaeological layers dated to this period have mainly been investigated in the southern parts of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and are still barely known in the other areas.

In southern Uzbekistan, this period, called here the Final Bronze Age (Luneau et al. 2014) or Late Bronze Age II (Teufer 2005; Kaniuth 2006) (see Chapter 16) has been primarily excavated at the sites of Dzharkutan, Bustan, and Molali (Askarov 1977; Avanesova 2013), but is also identified at many other poorly or not yet excavated small settlements (e.g., Bujrachi Depe, Pashkhurt,etc.). It is mainly recognized through specific pottery complexes (named “Kuzali,” “Molali,” and “Bustan”), which, despite apparent local variation, have also been used to characterize the sequence of southern Tajikistan, where for a long time the majority of the Bronze Age sites recorded were related to this period (Kangurttut, Teguzak, Kumsaj,Tandyrjul, etc.) (Vinogradova 2004).

In Afghanistan, the absence of archaeological fieldwork in the past decades hinders our view of the occupation in the area. The period in question has been identified at Dashly 17 and 19, for instance (Sarianidi 1977: 69, fig. 31), but was never studied. The only excavated site that gave substantial data and analyses is Shortughai period IV (Francfort 1989: 242; 2016).

In central Turkmenistan, the period is associated with the Takhirbaj 3 settlement, which serves as reference for the “Takhirbaj phase” (Masson 1959: 12.-17; Sarianidi 1990; Hiebert 1994a: 71). However, the hypothesis of one-time occupation of many Bronze Age sites in the Murghab has been definitely rejected (Salvatori 2008; Luneau 2014: 192). New studies as well as radiocarbon dates (Hiebert 1994a: 71; Rossi Osmida 2007: 118-120; Luneau 2014: 123-124) show that many of the large settlements that had developed during the previous periods continued to be occupied well into the first half of the second millennium BCE.

In the foothills of the Kopet Dagh, the end of the BMAC refers to Namazga (NMG) VI (Shchetenko 1972, 2000). The period has been connected with an abandonment or decrease of the urban centers and a “migration” of populations from the Kopet Dagh towards the Murghab area (Sarianidi 1990). This NMG VI phase has been identified at numerous other sites in the area (El’ken Depe, Tekkem Depe, Ulug Depe, etc.) but lacks a good characterization of its material culture. So far, the NMG VI layers of the Turkmen foothills have still not been precisely published, and it is thus unclear to which exact part of the BMAC they are related.

In northern Iran, although a permanent occupation related to the Oxus Civilization has been recently highlighted by new investigations (Vahdati and Biscione forthcoming; see also Chapter 19) and is clearly connected with the mature Oxus period in southern Central Asia, its continuation into the Final Bronze Age is not yet ascertained (Luneau 2018).

The chronology is thus imprecise, mostly due to regional differences, the complexity of chronological subdivisions, and methodological issues. It often relies on older studies, which sometimes proved to be invalid and that create serious confusion. It is also mostly based on few clear stratigraphic studies and on series created from the distribution of the funerary material. The sequences previously defined, as well as the connections between the different regions, are still a large matter of debate in southern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (Teufer 2005, 2015; Luneau et al. 2014), as well as in Turkmenistan (P’jankova 1993; Lamberg-Karlovsky 2003; 2013; Salvatori 2016) and Iran (Luneau 2018).

In addition, discrepancies in the terminology adopted by different scholars, like the use of the same term for different periods, disturb the perception (Luneau 2014: 46-47; Salvatori 2016). The final phase of the Oxus Civilization has been named as being “Final Bronze Age” but is also designated as “Late Bronze Age” (see Chapter 16). This last term serves as well to designate a larger chronological time period (Teufer 2005; Kaniuth 2006; Stanco 2016), which sometimes relates to the whole BMAC cultural complex. Lastly, the term “Final Bronze Age” was also previously used to designate cultures dated to the second half of the second millennium BC (Chust, Jaz I) because of the (quasi) absence of iron items, the imprecise nature of the transition, and the better harmonization with the Near Eastern chronologies. These cultures and periods are, however, now conventionally attributed to the “Early Iron Age.”

In order to highlight the evolution and phenomena of transition in the long run, we will use here the terms “Final Bronze Age” to designate the final phase of the Oxus Civilization between ca. 1750/1400 BC, “Middle/Late Bronze Age” to refer to the previous phases of this cultural entity between ca. 2300 and 1750 BC, and “Early Iron Age” to name the next “Jaz I” cultural phase (ca. 1450-1000/900 BC).