A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S
FO LIA A RC H A EO LO G IC A 26, 2009
Je r z y Ha t ł a s
University Library of Poznań
THE IRANIAN ELEMENTS IN THE THRACIAN
ART FIRST MILLENIUM B.C.
T h ra ce an d Ira n are quite d istan t territories situated o n tw o continents. W hile the T h ra cian s in the beginning o f first m illenium B.C. inhabited the E astern p a rt o f B alkan peninsula, at the sam e tim e som e Iran ian tribes already found th eir place on the perifery o f the A ssyrian-B abylonian world. T h an k s to the w arlike history o f thus region, these tribes were in the close co n tac t w ith C im m erians and w ith Scythians, w ho inhabited the N o rth o f Black Sea (including the C rim ean peninsula). In spite o f H e ro d o tu s (I, 103; IV, 11-13), w ho w rote th a t C im m erians had been pull ou t o f th eir territories by Scythians on N o rth o f the Black sea, there is still lack o f archaeological evidence and proof. A nd so, these inform ation can be treated in the category o f legendary tra d itio n o n ly .1 T h e relations betw een these tribes w ere ch arac-terised by co n stan t w ars and m ilitary cooperation. O n the o th er han d , W est o f Iran ian tribes (in A sia M in o r) flourished o th er im p o rta n t culture region, created by Phrygians, w ho cam e from the S o u thern M a c ed o n ia.2
T here is no d o u b t o f the close relations (in the first h a lf o f the first m illenium B .C .) betw een T hrace and A n ato lia, Scythia and G reece. N ever-theless, from the archaeological p oint o f view we can say n o th in g ab o u t the co n tact w ith Iran ian tribes before the G raeco-P ersian w ars. A s concerns the T h ra cian art, the so-called zoom orfic style (presented b o th in T h racian and Scythian art) had its analogies in M esopotam ia. T h ere is no m uch info r-m atio n in r-m o d ern literature which concern the T h ra c ia n -Ira n ia n relations in art. M oreover, there are m ore questions th a t hypotheses. N evertheless, we
1 K E T D 1993, p. 145-146.
can tracc som e elem ents in Iran ian a rt which are present also in T hracian art. F o r the pre-A chcm enid period the m ost im p o rta n t are discoveries m ade in 1928 in L uristan R egion (in Ira n ).3 T here were found m any Bronze objects, which can be dated on the first q u a rte r o f the first m illenium B.C. A lso very im p o rta n t was the discovery o f very rich treasu ry in Ziwyć (Iran ian K u rd istan ), which contained m any objects m ad e o f gold, silver and ivory. B oth som e bronze objects from L uristan and som e objects from treasury from Ziwyć had closer or m ore d istan t analogies in T hrace, which testifies the existence o f som e cultural region betw een T hrace and Iran.
T he w ell-know n B ulgarian scholar I. V encdikov was the p artisan of influence o f Persian a rt (as the idea) on the T h ra c ia n a r t.4 In his opinion m an y objects, w hich were attrib u ted by som e scholars to Scythians and by o thers to T hracian s, were m ade by T h ra cian craftsm en, under the influence o f P ersian and A chcm enid a r t.5
T h e P ersian rule on B alkan peninsula did n o t lasted to o long - at ab o u t 30 years only; startin g with a t a b o u t 510 B.C. w hen the M acedonian king A m yntas I surrended to Persians. „A chem enids ruled over M acedonia and T h race up to 479 B.C. and this epoch m arked in the history o f Balkan peninsula because consolidated these tribes” .6 T h e P ersian invasion no t only unified M ac ed o n ia bu t also stim ulated the origin (in the Black Sea area) of tw o new states, nam ely the O drisian K in g d o m 7 and B osporian K in g d o m .8
T h e T h ra cian -Iran ian relations in respect o f arts can be presented in case o f the follow ing objects.
Cult Axes
T h e first analysed in this article category o f objects is form ed by decorated axes. These tools can be dated on the th ird m illenium B.C. and are well know n from the area o f A sia M inor. F irstly it were very simple decorated. Ju st at ab o u t 10th century B.C. the Iran ian craftsm en introduced som e new decorative elem ents, such as represen tatio n o f anim als (lion, griffon, horse) and rep resentation o f persons or perh ap s ra th e r o f gods. T he place o f d ec o ratio n (it m eans blade) and the form o f such the tolls testified th a t there were cult objects and no t used in ordin ary life.
3 Venedikov 1969, p. 5 and cited bibliography. 4 Venedikov 1976, p. 52.
5 Venedikov 1969, p. 7. « Olbrycht 2004, s. 20. 7 Archibald 1998. 8 H rapunov 2005.
I. V enedikov presents six axes from the area o f T h ra ce. T h e first three o f them derive from Tetcven (see Phot. N o 1), K a rlu k o v o and from S tara Z agora. In the opinion o f the B ulgarian scholar these axes have no practical significance a t all; only some religious sym bols. T h e o th er three axes derive from K am en o p o le, Rilski m onastery and from an un k n o w n place. In the case o f last m entioned object G . K itov shows the village o f C hom akovci as the place o f fo u n d in g .9 T h an k s to the analogy with axes from M acedonia such the objects in T h race can be dated on 7th century B.C. T h e sim ilar axes arc know n also from the areas inhabited by Celts. So, such the tools could be interpreted as the sym bol o f religious pow er o r pro b ab ly also as the sign o f kingly pow er. In the opinion o f I. V enedikov these objects were tran sp o rte d to T h ra ce from Iran (by A sia M in o r) and so in their shape were preserved Iran o -A siatic form s.
T h e existence o f cult axes in T hrace is a fact and th ere is quite probably the sim ilarity w ith such the objects from Iran . But perh ap s in this case the above-m entioned objects had been to close related ethnically and to certain a ttrib u ted to the given tribes.
Zoomorfical appliques from horse’ harness
T h e m o st o f appliques deriving from h o rse’ harness found in T hrace and dated on 5th and 4th century B.C. have m any zoom orfic ornam ents. Q uite o ften th ere is presented a scene o f fight betw een anim als, as for exam ple o n one applique derived from a treasure from Letnica, which presents the fight o f lion with giffon.10
T h e good exam ple o f anim al scene is presented by open -w o rk applique from Brezovo, which represents the presentation o f a horse (see Phot. N o 2).11 here is the so-called „ ro ta tio n a l” plate, w ell-know n in the area o f T hrace.
T h e very characteristic horse o rn am en t in T h race th ere are certainly the so-called „ ro ta tio n a l” plates. „R o ta tio n a l” plates form the decorative element o f horse harness were quite often on th e territo ry o f ancient T hrace. U sually they were m ad e o f a gilded silver and presented fo u r h orse heads.T he sim ilar objects are know n from the territo ry inhabited by Scythians. In the opinion o f som e scholars we can speak o f Ira n ia n influence b u t in the other opinions this was local produ ctio n . In spite o f the certain T hraco-S cythic relations an d c o n ta c ts12, we have to distinguish betw een Ira n ia n Scyths and
9 K itov, Agre 2002, 182. 10 Venedikov 1996. 11 Filov 1916-1918, s. 9. 12 Frako-skifskite 1975.
Iran ian s from A chem id Persia. T h e Polish scholar J. K u b c zak m ade the conclusion th a t „T h racian decorations this tim e (4th century B.C.) seem the result o f a long developm ent o f an anim al style, which has no proto ty p es or the in term ediate form s in the native area, b u t is sim ilar to Scythians achievem ents from 5th and 4th century B .C .” 13
Pectorals
T h e o th er g ro u p o f objects probably connected w ith som e E astern influences can be form ed by pectorals. T here were golden and silver plates o f different shape rh o m b , ellipse, six-flank and sem icircular. T h ere were used b o th by m en and w om en who belonged to the u p p er circles o f T hracian society. O n the territo ry o f T hrace thse objects can be d ated from the end o f 6th up to th e first decennials o f 3rd century B .C .14 O f course such the objects are know n from o th er territories too - n o t only from T hrace. O n the area o f G reece these objects can be dated on M ycean period and the youngest objects o n this area (including G reek islands) can be dated o n 8th century B.C. T h e Pectorals are know n also from U ra rtu , A ssyria, P hoenicia and also from above-m entioned treasury from Ziwyć in Iran. A m ongst pectorals found in T h ra c e th e m o st im p o rta n t (from o u r p o in t o f view) are pectorals sem icircular shape. T h is shape is the connection w ith Ira n ia n influences. T he best exam ple is form ed by pectoral derived from tum u lu s B ashova m ogila (the end o f 5th century B.C. - see P hot. N o 3) near D uvanlii. T he lion’s head seen from above on this object is presented typically as in A chem enid art. A nd so, in the opinion ó f I. V enedikova „P ectoral from tum ulus „B ashova m o g ila” testifies the strong Persian influence on T h ra c ia n artistic craftsm an -ship” .15 T w o o th er golden pectorals from T h race derive from tum uli: G o liam ata m ogila (also from D uvanlii) and from the village o f D älboki (near S tara Z agora). T h e golden pectorals from T hrace can be dated o n the second h a lf o f 5th century B.C. O n the other hand on the second h alf o f 4th century B.C. can be d ated three sem icircular silver pectorals from : M ezek, Vrbica and Jan k o v o . In the opinion o f I. V enedikov three golden pectorals from T hrace form s the p a rt o f an arm am ent. O n the o th er h an d the pectorals m ade of silver (in th e o pinion o f this scholar) bear the signs o f to re u tic under the stro n g E astern influence. This influence can be presented no t only in shape bu t also in the m ode o f decoratio n o f above-m entioned objects.
13 Kubczak 1984, s. 75.
14 Venedikov, Gerasim ov 1978, p. 49-51.
H ow ever, o th e r scholars are m ore conscious as to the P ersian origin o f T h ra cian pectorals as testifies the follow ing q u o tatio n : „T h e lion m otiv on this o rn a m e n t m ay have derived from provincial Persian art, and parallels from the Ziwiye tresau re m ay also be m entioned, bu t the lio n ’s head seen from above, which also appears in early T h ra c ia n jew ellery, has good parallels on early L esbian billon coins” .16
Rythons
T h e ry th o n s are one o f the m ost com m on utensils in T h ra ce (see P hot. N o 4 an d N o 5 ).17 T h ere were m ade o f different m aterials, also o f gold or silver. P erh ap s the best know n T h ra cian rythons belong to the treasury from P an ag iu rish tc.18 O ther examples can be form ed by ry th o n from the village o f B o ro v o 19 an d Z latinica.20 Such the objects are well know n also from the o th er territories and from different tim es - also from Ira n .21 T he exam ple o f ry th o n found in T ranscaucasia can be form ed by ry th o n found in the village o f E rebuni in A rm enia.22
O n the exam ple o f rythons the influence o f Iran ian a rt on T h ra cian one is perhaps best testified in com parison with the o th er artistic objects. Perhaps the only one exam ple is w orth m entioning - nam ely from D uvanlii, where I. V enedikov see the connection w ith Ira n in silver a m p h o ra - ry th o n from the tum ulus o f K u k u v a m ogila. A nd so this object is one o f the best exam ples o f A chem enid to ren tics.23
Appliques from shields from Rozovec and Panagiurishte
F ro m the foundings from R ozovec we know n eight appliques and from P anagiurishte only five (see P hot. N o 6 and N o 7). In each case the collection is consisted o f one applique q u ad ran g le in shape an d o f several
16 Bouzek, O ndŕejová 1987, p. 69. 17 M arasov 1976; M arazov 1978. 18 Venedikov 1961.
19 Ivanov 1982.
20 The tum ulus o f Zlatinica, which contains very rich sepulchral objects was not so far described by archeologists. There are only press and internet inform ation.
21 G hirshm an 1962. 22 M arkarjan 2002.
round. T h e ch aractristic dccoratio n o f these applique is um b o in the central p art. W hile the appliques from R ozovcc do no t have any decorations, the appliques from Panagiurishte have in full anim al and floral decorations. I here arc some analogies, som e scholars see them in K u b a n b u t o thers sec some similarities in the treasury o f Iranian Ziwyć. T he appliques from Rozovcc can be dated o n the first h alf of 4th century B.C. b u t the appliques from Panagiurishte on the second half o f this century. Perhaps the appliques derived from the territo ry o f m o d ern Bulgaria can be traced also in the Iran ian art.
The sepulchral architecture
Some scholars see som e relations (both direct and indcrcct) between Ira n and T h ra ce also in the area o f sepulchral architecture. T h e Bulgarian scholar Ju lia V älcva m ade a proposition th a t the to m b -cu lt com plex under the tum ulus o f O stru sh a m ogila (P hot. N o 8) in the K a zan lak Valley (B ulgaria) was perhaps based on the tom b o f C yrus II the G re at in Iran in P asarg ad ai (P h o t. N o 9).24 In her opinion the sim ilarity between these two objects is based on the fact th a t ra th e r small m onolithic grave cham ber (in b oth cases) is situated o n the a lot large platform . O n the o th er hand there arc m any differences between these tw o tom bs, w hich the B ulgarian scholar describes by the different econom ic possibilities and different estethic views. In the case o f tom b o f O strusha m ogila the tum u lu s is com pletely on the w hole grave co n stru c tio n and the m onolithic grave ch am ber was ju st one room in the vast cult com plex.25 B ut in the opinion o f J. V áleva perh ap s in O stru sh a m ogila a t first existed only the m onolithic grave cham ber and o th er room s were built later. P erhaps also the tu m u lu s (in T h ra c ia n M a -cedonian trad itio n ) was m ade later. A nd this could be the reason o f above-m entioned differences. T he B ulgarian scholar m ad e a hypothesis (or this is a kind o f science fiction) th a t perhaps d u rin g the expedition of A lexander the G re at on E ast the M acedonian king w as accom panied by any high ra n k in g T h ra cian w ho simply saw the tom b o f C yrus the G re at in P asargadai and transferred this idea to T hrace. But she w rote next th a t the to m b o f C yrus was well know n in the ancient w orld even before the H ellenistic tim es, which can be testified by such the sepulchral objects from A sia M in o r like (dated on 5th century B.C. an d transferred to British M useum ) N ereid M o n u m en t (P hot. N o 10)26 from X a n th o s (the capital of
24 Váleva 1994, p. 61. 25 Kitov 1994a; K itov 1994b. 24 Bean 1978, p. 60.
L ikia - m o d ern K inik in T urkey) o r the fam ous m ausoleum o f M auzolosa in H a lik arn as (m odern B odrum in T urkey). T h e sculptures from Bodrum were transferred to B ritish M useum as well. A nd so, th e idea o f such the type o f to m b in T h race perhaps did no t derived from P ersia bu t from any o th e r to m b from A sia M inor, which was m uch closer to T h race (b o th in geographical and cu ltu ral term s) th an Iran. In the capital o f Likia X anthos there are m any great tom bs derived from different tim es, b o th earlier and later th a t tom b from O strusha m ogila, where can be find any sim ilarities with the to m b o f C yrus the G re at (See Phot. N o 11 and N o 12). But perhaps the to m b o f C yrus the G re at was based on any o th e r tom b from A n a to lia and the idea th a t the tom b o f O strusha m ogila perh ap s was based on the to m b o f C yrus the G re at would be falsified.
In sum o f the above-m entioned opinions concerning som e sim ilarities (on som e exam ples) between the sepulchral arch itectu re o f Iran and T hrace we have to be very prudence. Perhaps the m ore system atic archeological investigations on the area o f ancient T hrace on ancient sepulchral architec-ture will verify o r falsify o u r hypotheses.
T here are m an y theories concerning the origin o f a T h ra c ia n art. T he well know n m o d ern scholar G. K ito v see m any connections betw een T hrace and M ycenae. In his opinion „T he T h racian art. as a whole, especially as concerns the architecture and toreutic, is result o f early an d deep cultural unity between T h race and M ycenae” .27 As concerns the connections with Scythian and Persian a rt he tries to dim inish its significance. He rather speaks o f „ E a ste rn tra d itio n s” in T h racian art. G . K ito v this E astern influence secs by the influence o f old G reek a rt in the second q u a rte r o f the first m illenium B.C. - th an k s to the relations with A sia M in o r and as a result o f A chcm enid invasion on B alkan peninsula d u rin g the Persian w ars.28 A nd so, only in this last case we can speak o f the direct Persian influence.
T h e Czech scholars J. Bouzek and I. O ndrejova describe the different territo rial relations o f T h racian art. between T hrace, M acedonia, Iran and Scythia in the 4th century B.C.29
In this article there were rem inded (in a general form ) such the categories o f objects from th e te rrito ry o f ancient T h ra c e w hich are connected (in opinion o f som e scholars) with the O riental o r even Ira n ia n influences. In m any cases the com parison o f form o f such a r ts ’ objects seems to be logical b u t it could n o t be treated as certain. Q uite o ften the sim ilar m otives were used no t only in T h race and Iran bu t in T ranscaucasia, G reek islands
27 K itov, Agre 2002, s. 201. 28 K itov, Agre 2002, s. 201. 29 Bouzek, O ndrejova 1987.
and first o f all in A natolia. Perhaps better would be a hypothesis o f a certain cultural unity o f the area between T hrace and Ira n in the first m illenium B.C. th a n building o f som e theories lacking o f evidence.
T here is no d o u b t th a t the Persian rule on B alkan peninsula (although quite sh o rt) was very significant in different areas o f the h u m an life. F irst o f all we have to underline the process o f consolidation an d inner changes am ongst som e T h racian s, which culm inated in the beginning o f the O drician kingdom . A lso the m odel o f pow er in T hrace was certainly different from the A th en ian dem ocracy b u t it was different as well from the Persian au th o cratic pow er.30 On the o th er hand there were som e P ersian influences also in term s o f pow er. W e can be in com m on w ith saying th at: „Achem enid P ersia was the m odel o f political system and som e h a b its” .31 T he m odel for T h race was certainly also P ersian habits, arm y an d its organization. T he im p o rta n t is also the Persian influence on T h ra cian coins.32
M oreover, we have to rem em ber th a t m an y T h ra cian s served in the arm y o f A lexander the G reat. W ith o u t th eir co n trib u tio n the M acedonian arm y would be considerably weaker. Some o f them stayed in A sia for long as colonists. O n the o th er han d , these w ho returned to T h ra ce, to o k with them both som e concrete objects and their ideas, w hich afterw ards flourished in the form o f sim ilar a r t’ objects.33 W e can see m an y sim ilarities between P ersia and T h ra ce (in the area o f arm y, state in stitu tio n s o r habits), which seem to be quite obvious. O n the o th er hand the relations in area o f a rt are still difficult to establish and there is a strong need fo r fu rth er archaeological and historical investigations. C ertainly there was som e influence o f Iran ian art on the T h ra cian art, b u t there is still the question was it strong? Also unclear rem ain relations in the area o f sepulchral a rt (as w as w ritcn above).
Bibliography
Archibald 1998 = Z. H. A rchibald, The Odrysian Kingdom o f Thrace, Oxford.
B arr-Sharrar 1986 = B. B arr-Sharrar, “ Eastern Influence on the T oreutic A rt o f M a-cedonia Before the Conquest o f Alexander the G reat” , [in:] Ancient Maa-cedonia IV, Thessaloniki, p. 71-82.
Bean 1978 = G . E. Bean, Lycian Turkey. An Archeological guide, London.
30 In the older books the town o f Seuthopolis was named as the p ro o f of authocratic power, where the seat o f the ruler (together with the temple) was isolated from the rest o f a town by a strong defensive wall.
31 O lbrycht 2004, p. 20-21. 32 Picard 2000.
33 In this place I would like to thank to M . Olbrycht (Rzeszów Univ.) for his very valuable rem arks concerning the Iranian-Thracians relations.
Bouzek, Ondrejova 1987 = J. Bouzek, I. Ondŕejová, Some notes on the relations on the T hracian, M acedonian, Iranian and Scythian arts in the fourth century B.C., Eirene, 24, p. 67-93.
Dimitrov 1960 = D. P. D im itrov, G radoustrojstvo i architektura na trakijskija grad Sev- topolis, Archeoligija, 2, p. 3-15.
Ebbinghaus 1999 = S. Ebbinghaus, “ Between Geere and Persia: R hyta in Thrace from the Late 5th to the Early 3rd centuries B.C.” , [in:] G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks
West and East (M nemosyne, Supplement 196), Leiden/Boston/K öln, p. 385-425.
Farkas 1981 = A. E. Farkas, Style and Subject M atter in Native Thracian A rt, Metropolitan
M useum Journal, vol. 16, p. 33-48.
Filov 1916-1918 = B. Filov, Pametnici na trakijskoto izkustvo, Izvestia na Blgarskoto
Archeologiieskoto D ruiestvo, 6, p. 1-56.
Fol, M arazov 1977 = A. Fol, 1. M arazov, Thrace and the Thracians, London. Frako-skifskite 1975 = Frako-skifskite kulturnyje svjazi, Studia Thracica, 1.
Ghirshman 1962 = R. G hirshm an, “Le rhyton en Iran ” , [in:] Artibus Asiae, vol. 25,1, Zurich, p. 57-80.
Hrapunov 2005 = I. N. H rapunov, Drevnjaja istorija Kryma, Simferopol.
Ivanov 1982 = D . Ivanov, Trakijskoto srebrno skrovište ot selo Borovo, Godišnik na muzeite
ot Severná Bälgarija, kn. 8, p. 29-35.
KETD 1993 = Kratka enciklopedija trakijska drevnost, Sofija.
Kitov 1994a = G . K itov, “ Novi pametnici na trakijskata k u ltu ra ot mogilnija nekropol Šipka-Šejnovo v K azanlaško” , [in:] Pár vi meídunaroden simpozium "Sevtopolis". "Nadgrob-
nite mogili v jugostočna Evropa, Veliko Tm ovo, p. 105-115.
Kitov 1994b = G . K itov, Trakijski grobnično-kultov kompleks v mogilata O struša kraj šipka, Probierni na Izkustvoto, 4, p. 13-20.
Kitov, Agre 2002 = G . K itov, D. Agre, Vävedenie v trakijskata archeologija, Sofija. Kubczak 1984 = J. Kubczak, Trackie a scytyjskie ozdoby rzędu końskiego w układzie
rotacyjnym , Balcanica Posnaniensia. A cta et studia, t. 1, p. 65-78.
M arkarjan 2002 = A. M arkarjan, Serebjanyj riton iż Erebuni, Istoriko-Filologičeskij Žurnál (Erevan), 2, p. 166-177.
M arasov 1976 = I. M arasov, Les rhytons thraces (IV' - I l ľ s. av. n. ere), Pulpudeva, 1, p. 206-212.
M arazov 1977 = I. M arazov, Influences et originalite ou ľ lr a n et la Thrace, Thracia, 4, p. 15-31.
M arazov 1978 = I. M arazov, Ritonite v drevná Trakija, Sofija.
Paspalas 2000 = S. A. Paspalas, On Persian-Type Furniture in M acedonia: The Recog-nition and Transm ission o f Form s, American Journal o f Archaeology, vol. 104, N o 3, p. 531-560.
Picard 2000 = O. Picard, “ M onnayages en Thrace á ľépoque achém énide” , [in:] Casabonne (ed.), Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l ’Anatolie achéménide. Numismatique et
Histoire, Actes de la Table Ronde ďlstanbul, 22-23 mai 1997, Istanbul/Paris, p. 239-253.
Válcva 1994 = J. Väleva, Trakijski i makedonski monum entalni grobnici, Probierni na
Izkustvoto, 3, p. 55-62.
Olbrycht 2004 = M . Olbrycht, Aleksander Wielki i świat irański, Rzeszów.
Thracians and Phrygians 1998 = Thracians and Phrygians: Problems o f Parallelism.
Proce-edings o f an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages of Thrace and Phrygia. A nkara, 3-4 June 1995, A nkara.
Venedikov 1961 = 1. Venedikov, Panagjurskoto zlatno skrovište, Sofija.
Venedikov 1969a = I. Venedikov, “ Ľ a r t thrace et ľ a rt achéménide” , [in:] Actes du Premier
Venedikov 1969b = 1. Venedikov, Predachemenidski Iran i T rakija, Izvestija na Archea-
logičeskija Institut, 31, p. 5-43.
Venedikov 1976 = 1. Venedikov, L’art thrace, Pulpudeva, 1, p. 49-55.
Venedikov, Gerasimov 1976 = I. Venedikov, T. Gerasimov, Sztuka tracka, cz. 1, Warszawa. Venedikov, Gerasimov 1978 = I. Venedikov, T. Gerasimov, Sztuka tracka, cz. 2, Warszawa. Venedikov 1996 = I. Venedikov, Trakijskoto sákrovište ot Letnica, Sofija.
Wolski 1996 = J. Wolski, Imperium Arsacydów, Poznań.
Zournatzi 2000 = A. Zournatzi, Inscribed Silver Vessels o f the Odrysian Kongs: Gifts, Tribute, and the Diffusion o f the Form s o f “A chaemenid” M etalw are in Thrace, American
Journal o f Archaeology, vol. 104, No 4, p. 683-706.
Elementy irańskie w sztuce trackiej
pierwszego tysiąclecia przed Chr.
S t r e s z c z e n i e
Tracja i Iran to terytoria dość odległe od siebie, znajdujące się na dwóch kontynentach. W czasie gdy Trakow ie na początku I tysiąclecia przed Chr. zamieszkiwali już północną część Półwyspu Bałkańskiego, plem iona irańskie dopiero osiedliły się na peryferiach świata asyro- babilońskiego.
O ile bliskie kontakty w pierwszej połowie I tysiąclecia przed Chr. pomiędzy Tracją a A natolią, Scytią i G recją nie podlegają żadnej dyskusji, to o kontaktach z ludam i irańskimi sprzed okresu wojen grecko-perskich, z archeologicznego punktu widzenia, niewiele możemy powiedzieć. N a gruncie sztuki trackiej wskazywano jedynie n a fakt, że tak zwany styl zoomor- ficzny, który występował zarówno w sztuce trackiej, jak i scytyjskiej, swe analogie posiadał także w M ezopotam ii. D o dnia dzisiejszego literatura fachowa dotycząca kontaktów tracko- -irańskich w dziedzinie sztuki nie jest jeszcze zbyt obfita, a poszczególne hipotezy stawiają wiele znaków zapytania. M ożna jednak i należy się pokusić o wskazanie pewnych elementów w sztuce irańskiej, które odnajdujemy również i w sztuce trackiej, co też stało się przedmiotem niniejszego artykułu.
D la okresu przedachemenidzkiego szczególnie istotne są odkrycia dokonane w roku 1928 na terente Iranu w regionie Luristan. Znaleziono tam dużą liczbę brązowych przedmiotów, które datuje się na pierwszą ćwierć I tysiąclecia przed Chr. Nie mniej ważne okazało się też odkrycie niezwykle bogatego skarbu w miejscowości Ziwyć (irański K urdystan) zawierającego wiele przedm iotów wykonanych ze złota, srebra oraz kości słoniowej. Zarów no brązy z Luri- stanu, jak też niektóre przedm ioty ze skarbu z Ziwyć - jak się okazało - m ają swe bliższe lub dalsze paralele w Tracji, co świadczy o istnieniu pewnej, dużej obszarowo, wspólnocie kulturo-wej, któ ra obejmowała tereny pomiędzy Tracją a Iranem.
Związki tracko-irańskie na gruncie sztuki archeolodzy próbują rozpatryw ać analizując wybrane kategorie wytworów, typu: siekiery kultowe, aplikacje zoomorficzne pochodzące
z uprzęży końskiej, pektorały, rytony, aplikacje z tarcz z miejscowości Rozovec oraz Panag- juriszte, a także wskazując na pewne niewielkie podobieństwa, których m ożna się doszukiwać
w architekturze sepulkralnej.
Reasumując rozw ażania dotyczące pewnych podobieństw (dokonanych na wybranych przykładach) niektórych wytworów luksusowych, jak też związków w architekturze sepulkralnej Iranu i Tracji, należy jednak na obecnym etapie badań zachować w wysuwaniu wniosków daleko idącą ostrożność.
U J '
6. Silver applique from Panagiurishte 7. Silver applique from Panagiurishte
i
*
i
8. Ostrusha mogila (Phot. Kitov, Agre 2002, s. 162)
9. The tomb o f C yrus the Great in Pasargadai (Phot. Olbrycht 2004)
10. Xanthos, the place where once standed the Nereid M onument (Phot. J. Hatlas)
11. Xanthos - Free-standing house tomb beside the Roman agora (Phot. J. Hatlas)
12. Xanthos - Free-standing house tomb beside the Roman agora (Phot. J. Hatlas)
