are scarcely distributed in the archeological material. However, the cohesion is real. Beyond its Iranian roots, the Central Asian area has mainly inherited its cultural frame from a long process which can be stressed in three cultural steps: the first, formed during the Bronze Age, is represented by the so‐called “Oxus Civilization” or “Bactriana‐Margiana Archaeological Complex” (BMAC), which interacted during the second millennium BCE with the “steppic” Andronovo culture. Into the same geographical frame, this period was succeeded during the second half of the second millennium BCE by a first step of the Iron Age characterized by a process of renewal of the architecture, the funeral customs, and the material culture. This new “entity” is known, among others, under the general name of “Yaz I” culture, according to the chronological scale established on the base of the excavation of the homonymous site of Yaz‐depe in Turkmenistan. This period is characterized by the distribution of a handmade pottery with a painted geometric decoration and some gray ware. Whilst the large palaces and sanctuaries proper to the Bronze Age are absent at the beginning of the Iron Age, several settlements are erected on platforms or natural terraces.
Before the arrival of the Achaemenids, the so‐called “Yaz II” period (c. ninth to sixth centuries BCE) is marked by an increase in wheel‐made pottery and the diffusion of real iron objects. This period is more than transitional, since it is documented with new fortified centers dominated by monumental architecture (Ulug‐depe I, Koktepe II, and Sangir‐tepe II, etc.; dating is not sure for El’ken‐depe III, Talashkan I). While irrigation generally developed from the Bronze Age onward, it is not clear to what extent some centers such as in Zeravshan then related to the ancient irrigation programs identified through the surveys.
As for the preceding periods, the few historical facts relating to the Achaemenid rule (“Yaz III” period) do not coincide with a visible transformation dated by direct Achaemenid cultural features. The strength of the regional traditions is represented, for instance, by the continuation of wheel‐made cylindro‐conical pottery, while the shapes linked to proper Persia are limited to very scarce vessels (Lyonnet 1997). The integration in the Achaemenid Empire was realized mainly through the local nobility.
Besides the fact that it must extend to other regions inside and outside of the empire, the study of this period cannot ignore the influences the Achaemenid presence exercised in the later historical phases among its Parthian, Graeco‐Bactrian, and Chorasmian successors, as well as during the still later Kushan and Sogdian periods.
Written Sources of the Achaemenid Period
The texts relating to the Central Asian provinces are rather scarce and fragmentary. The most ancient references in the Iranian context are given by the Avesta, according to which eastern Bactria was the cradle of the Zoroastrianism (infra). For the Achaemenid period, most of the sources belong mainly to the corpus of propagandistic and administrative documents from the heart of the empire. The local perspective is represented only by a group of recently discovered administrative Bactrian parchments of the fourth century BCE (Naveh and Shaked 2012). Among the Greek sources, the reports relating to pre‐Achaemenid Bactria by Ctesias and Xenophon are controversial, while Herodotus knew little more than the earlier geographer Hecataeus. Similarly, the historicity of the presence in Bactria and Sogdiana of Mediterranean communities like the Barceans cited by Herodotus (4.204), or the Branchidae by Curtius Rufus (7.5.28–35), cannot be confirmed by any archeological site. Besides rare non‐dated “Persian” short inscriptions (Kandahar and Ai Khanum), most of the texts related to the Achaemenid presence belong to the later Aramaic tradition (inscriptions of Ashoka and later evidences from Bactria, Parthia, Margiana, and Chorasmia). The administration illustrated by the Graeco‐Bactrian inscriptions of Ai Khanum and Graeco‐Bactrian parchments recently discovered to the north of the Hindukush must be partly considered as the Hellenistic heir of the Achaemenid financial and fiscal system. The glyptics, however, is practically not represented (Francfort 2013).
From a literary point of view, the analysis of the Achaemenid past of the region relies mainly on the Graeco‐Roman sources relating to Alexander and his successors (Briant 2020; Rapin 2018).
Cities and Archeological Settlements
The field studies are rather scarce for fixing the precise hierarchy, nature, and evolution of the archeological sites (Figure 23.1). Besides the capitals of the satrapies, the territory comprised several large cities, probably at the head of the hyparchies, as well as regional castles, not to mention the villages or isolated settlements.
Figure 23.1 Map of the eastern part of Central Asia at the moment of the fall of the Achaemenid Empire and route of Alexander the Great in 330–327 BCE according to the most recent researches.
The capitals mentioned by the classical texts have been only partly excavated: Gorgan (in Hyrcania; Zadracarta was Sari in Tapuria), Merv (Erk‐kala, founded during the early Iron Age, later named Antiochia of Margiana, while Alexandria of Margiana was possibly more to the south in the region of Kushka), Herat (Artacoana/Alexandria in Aria), Begram (Kapisa in Paropamisadai), Balkh (Bactra in Bactria), Samarkand‐Afrasiab (Maracanda or Zariaspa in Sogdiana), and Nur‐tepe near Kurkat (Cyropolis or Cyreschata in Scythia‐Ustrushana, between Zaamin/Alexandria Eskhate? and Khojent/Antiochia Scythica). The capital of Oxiana (near which Alexander probably founded his Alexandria Oxiane) was somewhere in the center of the Sherabad‐darya district, not far from Sherabad, Talashkan‐tepe, or Jandavlat‐tepe (Rapin 2018).
Though their status is not precisely established, several large cities centered on the main oases, on crossroads and strategical positions, were probably the heads of the Achaemenid hyparchies. Besides Bactra, the south of the Oxus was controlled by cities such as Altyn Dilyar, Cheshme‐Shafa (infra), and Kohna Qala (“Ville ronde”) near Ai Khanum (*Oskobara/Eucratidia) along the “Ochus” river/Darya‐i Panj. Mentioned by the Bactrian parchments and the classical sources, Khulm/Tashkurgane (Khulmi), Qunduz (Varnu/Aornos), Drapsaka in the region of Surkh‐kotal, and Hulbuk (Cholbisina) have still to be explored. In Sogdiana, two cities controlled the Kashka‐darya valley: Kiš/Nautaca near Shahr‐i Sabz (sites of Uzunkyr, Padayatak‐tepe, and Sangir‐tepe) and Nikhšapaya/Xenippa near Karshi (site of Erkurgan). Other cities are represented by Koktepe (probably ancient Gava and Gabai, capital of Sogdiana until Cyrus), Kyzyl‐tepe (Gazaba? in Paretacene), Bandykhan, etc. North‐west of Termez (later Antiochia Tharmata), sites like Shor‐tepe (Tarmantis?) near Kampyr‐tepe (later Pandokheion) controlled the principal ford on the Oxus. The situation of Chorasmia differs since its Achaemenid sites developed later.
A Sogdian City from the Iron Age to the Hellenistic Period
The reconstitution of the political, social, and economic institutions relies on rare excavated sites (Figure 23.2). The study is mainly limited to military features represented by a citadel and large lines of fortifications (Afrasiab, Erkurgan, Uzunkyr, Koktepe, etc.), which not only englobed the proper monumental quarters but in times of danger had to shelter also the population of the region and the herds (these sites must be distinguished from the temporary fortresses or “rocks” occupied by the last Achaemenid Sogdian governors who opposed Alexander near the Iron Gates: Rapin 2018). The later Hellenistic cities like Ai Khanum reflected the same urban guidelines.