Samarqand, the Center of the World: where Alexander the Great and Tamerlane 'met' ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ” Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 16η Ιουνίου 2019. Στο κείμενό του αυτό ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης αποδίδει περιληπτικά αλλά περιεκτικά την κοσμοϊστορική σημασία της Σαμαρκάνδης (Αφρασιάμπ), μιας πόλης γύρω από την οποία η Παγκόσμια Ιστορία περιστράφηκε για δύο χιλιετίες (500 πτεμ – 1500 τεμ) με πολύ πιο πολύπλευρο, αποφασιστικό και καταλυτικό τρόπο από όσο γύρω από οποιαδήποτε άλλη πόλη ή πρωτεύουσα του κόσμου. Παρουσιάζοντας αυτή την οπτική, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης μεταφέρει στοιχεία από διάλεξη, την οποία έδωσα τον Ιανουάριο του 2016 στην Νουρσουλτάν (τότε Αστάνα) στην παρευρισκόταν μαζί με άλλους Γερμανούς, Ρωμιούς, Ρώσσους, Σομαλούς, Καζάκους, και Κινέζους φίλους. First republished on 15th September 2021 here: https://profmegalommatistextsingreek.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/σαμαρκάνδη-το-κέντρο-του-κόσμου-εκεί-π/

1. Σαμαρκάνδη: το
Κέντρο του Κόσμου,
εκεί που
‘συναντήθηκαν’ ο
Μέγας Αλέξανδρος κι
ο Ταμερλάνος
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/0
6/16/σαμαρκάνδη-το-κέντρο-του-κόσμου-εκεί-π/
=================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής –
Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη,Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή
Αυτοκρατορία
Όλος ο κόσμος ανάμεσα στον Ατλαντικό και
τον Ειρηνικό, όλοι οι λαοί ανάμεσα στην
Ρώμη και την Κίνα, και όλοι οι πολιτισμοί
από την Μεσοποταμία, την Ινδία και την

2. Ανατολική Ασία περιστρέφονται γύρω από
την Κεντρική Ασία, επικοινωνούν μέσω
αυτού του επίκεντρου των Δρόμων του
Μεταξιού, και διέρχονται από την
Αφρασιάμπ – Σαμαρκάνδη, την μεγαλύτερη
πανεπιστημιούπολη του κόσμου του 14ου
αιώνα.
Αυτή ήταν η περιοχή από όπου Τουρανοί,
Μογγόλοι, Ιρανοί, Αραμαίοι, Κινέζοι, Ινδοί
πέρασαν για να πάνε στα ανατολικά ή στα
δυτικά. Πρωτεύουσα της Σογδιανής, τμήμα
αυτοκρατοριών και βασιλείων, και πάλι
πρωτεύουσα της σουλτανάτου του
Ταμερλάνου και των Τιμουριδών, η
Σαμαρκάνδη είναι η ασιατική
καραβανούπολη στην οποία η Δύση γίνεται
Ανατολή και η Ανατολή Δύση.
Μιθραϊσμός, Τουρανικός Σαμανισμός,
Μανιχεϊσμός, Βουδισμός, Χριστιανωσύνη (:
Νεστοριανισμός) και Ισλάμ αντιπαρατέθηκαν
εδώ, συμβίωσαν, αναμείχθηκαν και
μεταμορφώθηκαν από θρησκεία σε

3. πολιτισμό, από Πίστη σε Σοφία, και από
ύλη σε Ενέργεια.
Σμικρογραφία χειρογράφου του Κήπου
Τριανταφύλλων των Ευσεβών του Μολλά
Τζαμί (Νουρεντίν Αμπντεραχμάν Τζαμί)
κορυφαίου φιλοσόφου, ποιητή,
μαθηματικού, φυσικού επιστήμονα και
μυστικιστή της Σχολής του Μοχυιεντίν Ίμπν

4. Άραμπι που έζησε στην Χεράτ (σήμερα
Αφγανιστάν) της Τιμουριδικής Τουρανικής
Αυτοκρατορίας των Γκορκανί και εργαζόταν
στην αυλή.
Όλη η Ασία, η Ευρώπη κι η Αφρική
μετουσιώνονται σε μια αδιαίρετη ιστορικά
και ενιαία πολιτισμικά οντότητα που
αποκαλείται Οικουμένη. Μπορεί οι
καταβολές του ανθρώπινου πολιτισμού να
βρίσκονται στην Μεσοποταμία και στην
Αίγυπτο, αλλά η ίδια η Ανθρώπινη Ιστορία
είναι συνάρτηση των όσων πέρασαν από την
Σαμαρκάνδη – Αφρασιάμπ.
Όμως, οι απαρχές της μυθικής
καραβανούπολης και πρωτεύουσας της
Σογδιανής πηγαίνουν πολύ πριν από τα
ιστορικά χρόνια των Αχαιμενιδών και
χάνονται μαζί με τα ίχνη του θρυλικού
βασιλιά του Τουράν, του Αφρασιάμπ, που
τους ατελείωτους πολέμους του αφηγήθηκε
ο Φερντοουσί, εθνικός ποιητής του
ισλαμικού Ιράν στις αρχές του 10ου

5. χριστιανικού αιώνα μέσα στο απέραντο έπος
Σαχναμέ (: Το Βιβλίο των Βασιλέων).
Η ανέγερση του κεντρικού τζαμιού της
Σαμαρκάνδης όπως απεικονίζεται σε
σμικοργραφία χειρογράφου

6. Ο Ουλούγ Μπεγκ, εγγονός του Ταμερλάνου
και μέγας βασιλεύς της τιμουριδικής
τουρανικής κεντρασιατικής αυτοκρατορίας
των Γκορκανί, κορυφαίος μαθηματικός,

7. ιατρός κι αστρονόμος του 15ου αιώνα,
ιδρυτής του καλύτερου αστεροσκοπείου του
τότε κόσμου, συγγραφέας του οποίου τα
έργα μεταφράζονταν στα λατινικά,
αναπαρίσταται εδώ με το χαρέμι και τους
αυλικούς του.
Στο θέμα θα επανέλθω καθώς είναι
ανεξάντλητο τόσο όσο και τα εντυπωσιακά
μνημεία που ακόμη σήμερα σώζονται στην
Σαμαρκάνδη – Αφρασιάμπ, τον τόπο όπου
όλοι οι άνθρωποι μετουσιώνονται σε
Πολίτες του Κόσμου.

8. Το Τζαμί-Θρησκευτική Σχολή (Μεντρεσά)
του Ουλούγ Μπεγκ από την περιοχή
Ρετζιστάν της Σαμαρκάνδης

9. Θρησκευτική Σχολή Τίλυα Καρί από την
περιοχή Ρετζιστάν της Σαμαρκάνδης
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Самарканд-Афрасиаб, Центр Мира –
Σαμαρκάνδη-Αφρασιάμπ, το Κέντρο του
Κόσμου
https://ok.ru/video/1410623408749
Samarqand-Afrasiab, the Center of the
World – Самарканд-Афрасиаб, Центр
Мира

10. http://vk.com/video434648441_4562402
10
Σαμαρκάνδη-Αφρασιάμπ, το Κέντρο του
Κόσμου – Samarqand-Afrasiab, the
Center of the World
Περισσότερα:
Столица Согдианы, названная в честь
легендарного царя Афрасиаба
Туранского, часть империй и
эпицентр могущественных королевств,
прославленный город центрально-
азиатских караванов был расположен в
центре исторического Шелкового пути.
Это место, где Александр Великий и
Тимур Ленг (Тамерлан)
«встречаются», но их затмевает
Улугбек, внук Тамерлана и величайший
правитель 2-го тысячелетия н.э.,
который был не только Великим
Императором (Амир-и Кабир: Улуг
Бег) из Горкани (Империя Тимуридов),
а также ведущий математик, врач,
алхимик, астроном и основатель

11. крупнейшей в мире обсерватории XV в.
Искусство, сокровища и величие
памятников Самарканда не
сравнится ни с одним другим городом
в мире.
Capital of Sogdia, named after the
legendary king Afrasiab of Turan, part of
empires and epicenter of powerful
kingdoms, the illustrious city of the
Central Asiatic caravans was located at
the focal point of the historical Silk
Road. This is the place where Alexander
the Great and Timur Leng (Tamerlane)
‘meet’ only to be eclipsed by Ulugh Beg,
Tamerlane’s grandson and greatest ruler of
the 2nd millennium CE, who was not
only the Great Emperor (Amir-e Kabir:
Ulugh Beg) of the Gorkani (Timurid
Empire) but also a leading
mathematician, medical doctor,
alchemist, astronomer and founder of the
world’s greatest observatory of the 15th c.
The art, the treasures and the grandeur of

12. Samarqand’s monuments is not matched
by any other city in the world.
Πρωτεύουσα της Σογδιανής, ονομασμένη
από το όνομα του μυθικού βασιλιά
Αφρασιάμπ του Τουράν, τμήμα
αυτοκρατοριών και κέντρο πανισχύρων
βασιλείων, η καραβανούπολη – επίκεντρο
των Δρόμων του Μεταξιού είναι ο χώρος
όπου συναντώνται ο Μέγας Αλέξανδρος κι ο
Ταμερλάνος αλλά αμφότεροι επισκιάζονται
από τον Ουλούγ Μπεκ, εγγονό του
Ταμερλάνου και μεγαλύτερο ηγεμόνα της
2ης χριστιανικής χιλιετίας, ο οποίος εκτός
από μέγας άρχων των Γκορκανί
(τιμουριδική αυτοκρατορία) ήταν κορυφαίος,
πρωτοπόρος μαθηματικός, ιατρός,
αλχημιστής, αστρονόμος και ιδρυτής του
μεγαλύτερου αστεροσκοπείου του κόσμου
τον 15ο αιώνα. Την τέχνη, τον πλούτο και
το μεγαλείο των μνημείων της
Σαμαρκάνδης (Μαρακάνδα στα αρχαία
ελληνικά) δεν τα προσεγγίζει καμμιά άλλη
πόλη στον κόσμο.

13. Περισσότερα:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarkand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gur-e-
Amir
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrasiyab_(
Samarkand)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogdia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrasiab
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Самаркан
д
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Афрасиаб_(
городище)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulugh_Beg
https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ούλουγκ_Μ
πεγκ
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Улугбек
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_E
mpire
—————————————–
Διαβάστε:
Samarqand – History and Archeology

14. Since the publication of the entry
Afrāsiāb (EIr. I, 1984, pp. 576-78), new
information has been brought to light on
this archeological site and, consequently,
on the history of pre-Mongol Samarqand.
This progress is mainly a result of the
activities of the MAFOUZ (Mission
Archéologique Franco-Ouzbèke), which
commenced in 1989 and continues to
date.
Concerning the foundation of the city,
which resulted from the fortification of
the plateau (already sporadically
occupied in the Bronze and Early Iron
Ages), a pre-Achaemenid date, between
ca. 650 and ca. 550 BCE, seems now
confirmed. The specific character of this
first urban foundation stands out more
clearly.
A wall follows the whole circuit of the
plateau (5.5 km), complemented by
another one which separates the town
from the acropolis, situated in the

15. northern part and itself including a
citadel raised on an artificial platform.
These topographical-functional features
were to last as long as the town was
centered on this site.
The existence inside Afrāsiāb of an
artificial water supply through the
Dargom channel (extending 40 km from
the Zarafšān River), a branch of which
entered through the southern gate, is
archeologically confirmed for the
Achaemenid period only; but it seems
probable that it existed from the
beginning.
The wall, 7 m thick, is massive, in
contrast to those which were built upon it
in the city’s Achaemenid and Greek
periods. It is made of coarse mud bricks of
plano-convex shape, all of which bear a
mark, an indication that labor was
strictly organized in groups of workers at
the initiative of the local political power.

16. Similar building techniques have been
noticed at other Sogdian and pre-Sogdian
sites during that pre-Achaemenid period:
Kok Tepe (30 km north of Samarqand,
with similar brick marks, a fact which
suggests a contemporary foundation),
Padaiatak Tepe and Sangyr Tepe near
Šahr-e Sabz, Eilatan and Dal’verzin Tepe
in Farḡana.
The Greek occupation appears to be
divided into two phases, the first lasting
from Alexander to some date in the
second half of the 3rd century BCE and
the second, a shorter period of reconquest
under the Greco-Bactrian king Eucratides
(r. ca. 171-145 BCE).
The pottery complex differs markedly
between these two phases, which seem to
have been separated by a period of
nomadic invasion, at a time when the
Greek line of defense was temporarily
shifted to the south (as witnessed also by
the earliest wall brought to light by

17. excavations in the strategic pass at
Derbent [see DARBAND]).
In addition to the fortifications, the Greek
garrison (in the first phase) left its mark
with a large granary, built in the center
of the acropolis, at a place now buried
deep below the mosque.
The peak of the pre-Islamic Sogdian
civilization is mostly documented from
the excavations at Panjikent (q.v.). At
Samarqand, the major source of evidence
for this period is the aristocratic residence
which stood just inside Wall III, which
constituted the southern limit of the
fortified town between the 6th and 8th
centuries CE.
The famous wall paintings (Afrāsiāb ii)
which were commissioned for a reception
hall ca. 660 CE, probably by King
Varkhuman himself, are the object of
ongoing study and interpretation.
Contrary to what had been proposed in
afrāsīab, the whole composition is no

18. longer believed to be related to the arrival
of embassies at Samarqand (which forms
the specific theme of the western wall),
but to more varied themes of geopolitics
and royal propaganda: the dynastic cult
(southern wall), the greatness of the
Chinese ally (northern wall), Indian
legends (eastern wall).
A substantial amount of information
(sometimes complementary and sometimes
conflicting with the picture hitherto
drawn from textual sources) has come to
light concerning the 8th century.
Excavations carried out beneath the
mosque have revealed evidence for a
rapid succession of monumental
buildings.
A massive enclosure, perhaps the temenos
of the pre-Islamic temple mentioned in
the sources, was razed some time after the
Arab conquest of 712. Instead of a first
mosque, as was hitherto assumed, the site
was occupied by a large palace (ca. 115 x

19. 84 m), built in the 740s (according to
numismatic evidence), and it is therefore
attributable to the last Omayyad governor,
Nasr b. Sayyār.
Architecturally, it appears as a
transitional building, combining features
inherited from earlier Sogdian palaces (a
rectangular ‘throne hall’, corridors), and
others that are more innovative (such as
beyts, i.e., rooms grouped in a rectangle
around a courtyard or hall). Some of the
baked bricks had been lavishly used for
pavements – another innovation.
They carry Kufic inscriptions, most often
consisting ʾxšyd, i.e., eḵšīd, the Sogdian
royal title. It is conjectured that the then
representative of the local dynasty,
residing outside Samarqand and still in
charge of tax collection, had agreed to pay
part of it in kind to contribute to the
building of the governor’s palace.
Some time between 765 and 780 sections
of the palace were leveled to make room

20. for the Friday mosque, which was first
built on a square plan, and then
(probably at the beginning of the
Samanid period, ca. 820-30) enlarged
towards the western direction, which led
to the leveling of the remaining parts of
the palace.
Finds made in the palace include
exercises in Arabic, which testify to the
existence of a maktab, as well as the
earliest set of chess pieces ever discovered
in an archeological context. Important
fragments of the stucco decoration of the
qebla wall of the first mosque, buried
after the enlargement of the building,
belong to the pre-Samarra Abbasid style,
hitherto known only from examples in
Syria, Iraq, and Fārs.
Before that, in the early 750s, a second
Arab palace had been erected to the east
of the citadel, evidently by Abu Moslem
(although written sources credit him only
with the construction of the wall around

21. the oasis). The regularity of its plan
stands in marked contrast to the previous
palace and indicates the work of an
architect from Iran or the Near East.
The same applies to the use of porticoes of
octagonal columns, built in mud brick in
both the inner and the outer courtyard.
An eyvān opened to the latter (instead of
into a closed throne hall). This palace
never received any decoration, which is
not consistent with the high
representative functions it was obviously
destined to fulfill.
After an interruption, no doubt caused by
Abu Moslem’s execution in 755, it was
eventually completed with radical
alterations to the original plan, the
porticoes being replaced by corridors.
Some parts of the palace subsisted until
the 10th century. (However, the dār al-
emāra mentioned by Eṣṭaḵri and Ebn
Ḥawqal at the citadel was probably a
later construction).

22. Knowledge of the two last centuries of
Afrāsiāb has also progressed substantially.
Above the leveled ruins of Abu Moslem’s
palace in the northern section overlooking
the Sīab river, pavilions were added in
the Qaraḵānid period (11th-12th
centuries), as an extension of a new
palace built on the citadel (where these
levels have been entirely destroyed by
early archeologists).
Since the year 2000, the excavation of
one of these pavilions has brought to light
collapsed remains of remarkable painted
decoration, almost the only evidence for
mural painting so far reported in
Transoxiana for this period. It comprises
birds in a floral and calligraphic setting
(apparently based on Persian poetry),
dancers, a frieze of hunting dogs, and
fragments of a large composition with
Turkish guards presenting the ruler with
symbols of power (the figure of an archer
has been restored).

23. The very last phase at Afrāsiāb was
marked by a reconstruction of the palace
at the citadel (mentioned in 1221 by the
Chinese traveler Changchun) and by a
complete rebuilding of the Friday mosque,
commissioned (according to the Persian
chronicler Jovayni) by Moḥammad b.
Tekeš after his bloody capture of the town
in 1212.
Excavations have shown that the latter
project was suddenly abandoned even
before the monumental pillars had been
built above floor level. They were
replaced by wooden columns, probably
requisitioned ones. The reason for this
change was most probably the Mongol
threat, which led to a massive
reinforcement of the fortifications at the
citadel and at the gates.
The first datable fortification of the oasis
is the Divār-e Qīamat, initiated by Abu
Moslem and completed under Hārun al-
Rašid, along a circuit of about 35 km. Its

24. gates were dismantled under the
Samanids, and only a few sections survive
today. A transverse wall, the Divār-e
Kundalyang, now entirely destroyed,
cannot be dated. Its attribution to the
Achaemenid period rests only upon the
“LXX stades” given by Curtius Rufus
7.6.10 for the city wall of Maracanda.
However, this figure is suspected to be
corrupted from XXX, i.e., 5.5 km, which is
exactly the perimeter of Afrāsiāb. The
transfer of city life to the south of
Afrāsiāb, completed shortly after the
Mongol invasion, was already on the way
in the 11th-12th centuries.
For this period temporary disruptions of
the water supply, due to the continuous
rise of the occupation level, can be
observed in the northern part of the
plateau. Ceramists’ quarters were
gradually moving upstream along the
channel branches.

25. According to the descriptions by Arab
geographers, the main commercial center
was around the Raʾs al-Tāq, the
embankment which led the water
channel through the southern gate.
Archeology is of little help here, because
of the presence of the modern town. It has
been supposed that the wall that was
built later on by Timur in order to
encircle his town had taken the place of
a suburb wall already existing before the
Mongols.
However, there is no archeological proof
for this. The main sources of information
for the southern suburb in that period
are two waqf documents from 1066. One
concerns the endowment for a madrasa,
situated in the southern part of Afrāsiāb
(although this has been disputed), but
perhaps the madrasa does not in fact
correspond to the remains excavated in
front of the mausoleum of Qoṯam b.
ʿAbbās.

26. The second document creates a hospital
for the poor, which is situated somewhere
to the south of the main bazaar. Both give
precise locations and descriptions for the
various estates listed in the endowments,
mostly ḵāns (caravansarais), all of which
appear to be in the bazaar zone or in its
vicinity.
Some toponyms have survived until
modern times, such as the Čahār Suq and
the ‘Sand (place) of the merchants’,
probably predecessors of the Registān
square, at the crossroads of the oasis.
The capture of Samarqand by the Mongols
left it with one-quarter or even less of its
former population (evaluated by
Changchun to “more than 100,000
households” in the oasis before the
conquest).
Moreover, this remaining population did
not include the craftsmen who were
transported to Mongolia and subsequently,
in a second wave (under Ögedey), to

27. Simāh (Siun-ma-lin), north of Peking,
where they introduced vine growing and
a particular kind of brocade. Samarqand
had by then become part of the ulus of
Čāḡatāy.
The huge losses in working population
were certainly the decisive factor for the
abandonment of Afrāsiāb, whose water
supply required more skills and labor
than the southern suburb.
According to the Moroccan traveller Ebn
Baṭṭuṭa, who stayed in Samarqand in
1333 (or 1335), it did not have
functioning walls or gates anymore, and
many monuments were in ruins. However,
the bazaar was again prosperous, and the
complex around the grave of Qoṯam (the
only part of Afrāsiāb still occupied) was
splendidly built.
In 1371, Timur chose Samarqand as his
capital and immediately had the new site
fortified by a new wall and a citadel in
its western part, containing the Kok

28. Sarāy, a palace used only for ceremonies .
The court and the army lived in the
gardens built around the town.
The rebuilding of the city on its new site
was resumed on a grand scale after
Timur’s return from his western
campaigns in 1396, in particular with
the construction of the Friday mosque
(Bibi Ḵānum) next to the northern gates
and the opening of the bazaar mainstreet
between the mosque and the Registān
area.
Craftsmen deported from all the
conquered countries contributed to the
new buildings, and some villages in the
vicinity are still named after their places
of origin (Širāz, Demašq). From that
period onwards, archeological
information comes more from the
recording of monuments still standing (see
samarqand. monuments) than from
excavations, with the exceptions of the
citadel (destroyed in the Tsarist and

29. Soviet periods) and the observatory built
by Uluḡ-Beg in 1421 to the northeast of
Afrāsiāb and rediscovered in 1908.
After the final conquest of Timurid
Samarqand by Moḥammad Šaybāni (in
1500), the function of capital of
Transoxania was transfered to Bukhara.
The Šaybānids and their successors, the
Astraḵānids, continued however to
embellish Samarqand: the Registān
square received its final form with three
madrasas in 1660.
A sharp decline occured in the 18th
century, with Kazakh inroads, dynastic
strife, and eventually an occupation by
Nāder Šāh’s army in 1740-47. Already
in the 1720s, the city was almost deserted
and the madrasas on the Registān were
turned into winter stables by nomads.
Recovery was slow and incomplete.
At the time of the Russian conquest in
1868, the city numbered only 55,128
inhabitants, in contrast to figures known

30. for the 13th century (see above) and today
(about 500,000).
Bibliography:
Studies based mainly on archeological
material. Kh. G. Akhun-babev, Dvorets
Ikhshidov Sogda na Afrasiabe (The palace
of the Ikhshids of Sogd at Afrāsiāb),
Samarkand, 1999.
P. Bernard, “Maracanda-Afrasiab colonie
grecque,” in La Persia e l’Asia centrale da
Alessandro al X secolo (Atti dei convegni
Lincei 127), Rome, 1996, pp. 331-65.
P. Bernard, F. Grenet, M. Isamiddinov,
“Fouilles de la mission franco-soviétique
à l’ancienne Samarkand (Afrasiab):
première campagne, 1989” and “Fouilles
de la mission franco-ouzbèque à
l’ancienne Samarkand (Afrasiab):
deuxième et troisième campagnes (1990-
1991),” Comptes Rendus de l’Académie
des Inscriptions & Belles-lettres, 1990, pp.
356-80 ; 1992, pp. 275-311.

31. Iu. F. Buryakov, ed., K istoricheskoĭ
topografii drevnego i srednevekovogo
Samarkanda (About the historical
topography of ancient and medieval
Samarkand), Tashkent, 1981.
E. Iu. Buryakova, “K planirovke i
fortifikatsii Samarkandskoĭ tsitadeli XIV-
XIX vv. (About the plan of the
fortifications of the citadel of Samarkand,
14th-19th centuries), in G. A.
Pugachenkova, ed., Kul’tura srednevo
Vostoka. Gradostroitel’stvo i arkhitektura,
Tashkent, 1989, pp. 115-25.
G. V. Chichkina [Shishkina], “Les
remparts de Samarcande à l’époque
hellénistique,” in P. Leriche, H. Tréziny,
eds., La fortification dans l’histoire du
monde grec, Paris, 1986, pp. 71-78, figs.
287-302.
F. Grenet, “L’Inde des astrologues sur une
peinture sogdienne du VIIe siècle,” in C.
Cereti, M. Maggi, E. Provasi, eds.,
Religious Themes and Texts in Pre-

32. Islamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in
Honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli,
Wiesbaden, 2002.
F. Grene [Grenet], I. D. Ivanitskiĭ, “Dvorets
omeyadskogo namestnika pod mechet’yu
Abbasidskogo perioda na Afrasiabe” (The
palace of the Umayyad governor under
the mosque from the Abbasid period at
Afrasiab), in T. Sh. Shirinov, ed.,
Arkheologiya, numizmatika i epigrafika
srednevekovoĭ Sredneĭ Azii, Samarkand,
2000, pp. 58-62.
F. Grenet, C. Rapin, “De la Samarkand
antique à la Samarkand médiévale:
continuités et ruptures,” in R. P.
Gayraud,ed., Colloque international
d’archéologie islamique, Cairo, 1998, pp.
387-402.
O. N. Inevatkina, “Fortifikatsiya
akropolya drevnego Samarkanda v
seredine pervogo tysyacheletiya do n.e.”
(The fortification of the acropolis of
ancient Samarkand in the middle of the

33. 1st millenium BCE), Material’naya
kul’tura Vostoka 3, Moscow, 2002, pp.
24-46.
E. D. Ivanitskiĭ, O. N. Inevatkina,
“Periodizatsiya i etapy razvitiya
vodosnabzheniya Afrasiaba” (Periods and
stages of the development of the water-
supply of Afrasiab), Istoriya Material’noĭ
Kul’tury Uzbekistana 30, Samarkand,
1999, pp. 96-103.
E. Kageyama, “A Chinese Way of
Depicting Foreign Delegates Discerned in
the Painting of Afrasiab,” in Ph. Huyse,
ed., Iran: Questions et connaissances. Actes
du IVe congrès européen des études
iraniennes. Paris, 6-10 Septembre 1999,
vol. I: Etudes sur l’Iran ancien, Paris,
2002, pp. 309-23.
Yu. Karev, “Un palais islamique du VIIIe
siècle à Samarkand,” Studia Iranica 29,
2000, pp. 273-96.

34. E. de La Vaissière, Histoire des marchands
sogdiens, Paris, 2002.
B. Lyonnet, “Les Grecs, les nomades et
l’indépendance de la Sogdiane, d’après
l’occupation comparée d’Aï Khanoum et
de Marakanda au cours des derniers
siècles avant notre ère,” Bulletin of the
Asia Institute 12, 1998, pp. 141-59.
B. Marshak, “Le programme
iconographique des peintures de la ‘Salle
des ambassadeurs’ à Afrasiab
(Samarkand),” Arts Asiatiques 49, 1994,
pp. 5-20.
N. B. Nemtseva (with notes by M. Rogers),
“The origins and architectural
development of the Shah-i zinde,” Iran
15, 1977, pp. 51-73.
C. Rapin, “Fortifications hellénistiques de
Samarcande (Samarkand-Afrasiab),”
Topoi 4, 1994, pp. 547-65.
G. V. Shishkina, Remeslennaya
produktsiya srednevekovogo Sogda (The

35. artisanal production of medieval Soghd),
Tashkent, 1986.
Idem, “Ancient Samarkand: Capital of
Soghd,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 8,
1994 [1996], pp. 81-99.
G. V. Shishkina, L. V. Pavchinskaja,
Terres secrètes de Samarcande. Céramiques
du VIIIe au XIIIe siècle, Paris, 1992.
Studies based mainly on historical
sources. A. M. Belenitskiĭ, I. B. Bentovich,
O. G. Bol’shakov, Srednevevovyĭ gorod
Sredneĭ Azii (The medieval town in
Central Asia), Leningrad, 1973 (esp. pp.
143-62, 219-32, 266).
Dzh. Z. Buniyatov, T. B. Gasanov, “Dva
samarkandskikh vakfa serediny XI v.”
(Two waqf documents from Samarkand,
mid 11th century), Vostochnoe
istoricheskoe istochnikovedenie i
spetsial’nye istoricheskie distsipliny II,
Moscow, 1994, pp. 39-63.

36. Yu. Karev, “La politique d’Abū Muslim
dans le Māwarā’annahr. Nouvelles
données textuelles et archéologiques,” Der
Islam 79, 2002, pp. 1-46.
M. Khadr (with an introduction by
Claude Cahen), “Deux actes de waqf d’un
qarahanide d’Asie centrale,” JA 255,
1967, pp. 305-34.
B. Manz, The Rise and Rule of
Tamerlane, Cambridge, 1989.
J. Paul, “The histories of Samarqand,”
Studia Iranica 22, 1993, pp. 69-92.
P. Pelliot, “Une ville musulmane dans la
Chine du Nord sous les Mongols,” JA 211,
1927, pp. 261-79.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sa
marqand-i
——————————————-
Afrasiab – The Archeological Site
Afrāsīāb is the ruined site of ancient and
medieval Samarqand in the northern

37. part of the modern town. The term Qaḷʿa-
ye Afrāsīāb appears in written sources
only from the end of the 17th century.
The name is popularly connected with
that of the epic king of Tūrān, Afrāsīāb,
but scholars see in it a distortion of Tajik
Parsīāb (Sogdian Paršvāb), “Above the
black river,” i.e., the Sīāhāb or Sīāb,
which bounds the site on the north.
The area of Afrāsīāb covers 219 hectares,
and the thickness of the archeological
strata reaches 8-12 m. The ruined site
has the shape of an irregular triangle,
bounded on the east by the irrigation
canal Āb-e Mašhad, and on the west by
the deep Aṭčapar ravine, which in
ancient times played the part of a moat.
Inside these limits Afrāsīāb appears as a
hillocky waste with several depressions
sunk over what had been town squares
and reservoirs. In the northern part rises
the citadel (90 by 90 m) with a ramp
along its eastern facade. The ruined site is

38. surrounded by earth banks, remnants of
fortress walls belonging to four successive
ages.
Archeological excavations carried on in
Afrāsīāb since the end of the 19th
century, and very actively in the 1960-
70s, have supplied sequences of the site’s
material and artistic culture and so have
established the basic chronology of its
history.
The settling of the territory of Afrāsīāb
began in the 7th-6th centuries B.C. It was
already a city occupying almost the entire
area of the present site and surrounded by
a powerful fortress wall of rectangular,
unbaked bricks on an adobe platform.
The supply of water was ensured by a
canal and open reservoirs (discovered in
the eastern and northern parts of
Afrāsīāb). The archeological complex of
that time is represented by wheel-turned
pottery vessels of cylindrical or conical-
cylinder shape with a slanting base,

39. grain crushers, and leaf-shaped (and for
the 5th-4th centuries B.C., three-bladed)
bronze arrowheads.
The city at the end of this period is
identified with Marakanda, mentioned
in connection with Alexander’s
expedition into Soḡd in 329-327 B.C. by
Arrian and Quintus Curtius.
The archeological strata of the 4th-1st
centuries B.C. have been traced in various
zones of Afrāsīāb. In the northern and
western parts of the ruined site fortress
walls have been uncovered built of square
unbaked brick with internal passages,
loopholes, and a lower projecting shelf.
Dwellings have been excavated. Specific
for this archeological complex are high
quality wheel-turned ceramics (thin,
polished, red angāb goblets, cups, vases,
and dishes) showing the influence of the
Hellenistic tradition. One of the goblets
bears the Greek name Nikis, while among

40. the terracottas there are heads of the
helmeted Athena and Arethusia type.
Characteristic finds are bronze, three-
bladed arrow-heads, ornaments, and gem
seals. Coins of Antiochus Soter and of the
Greco-Bactrian kings Eutidemus and
Eucratides witness to trade relations.
Contrary to the opinion held by some
researchers that during the Kushan
period (1st century B.C.—first centuries
A.D.) the city was passing through a
period of decline, a number of scholars
regard it as having flourished, a view
confirmed by excavations of recent years.
These have uncovered monumental
residential and religious buildings and
workshops, in particular the quarter of
ceramicists and metalworkers.
During that period the leaden aqueduct
Jūy-e Arzīz was conducted from Darḡom.
A special defense wall was built around
Afrāsīāb in a large district of Samarqand.
The archeological complex contains

41. ceramic vessels of high quality, on
arrowheads, stone projectiles, bone
styluses, intaglio gems, a treasure of silver
obols bearing the figure of a bowman
(which enjoyed a long circulation), glass
vessels and ornaments, blue paste
Egyptian objects for cult use.
Among modeled artifacts are numerous
statuettes of goddesses of aristocratic or
popular type, musicians playing lutes
and horizontal and vertical flutes, horses,
and other figures.
In the 4th-5th centuries A.D., a time of
crisis in the slave-holding society and the
beginning of the shaping of feudalism,
the inhabited area of Afrāsīāb shrank.
The fortress walls encircled only part of
the territory of the town, and burials took
place in the ancient wall.
The quality of the pottery sharply
deteriorates; the shape of the vessels alters,
and many are hand modeled. Horrific
figures predominate in terracottas.

42. In the 6th-7th centuries Samarqand was
the capital of Soḡd ruled by the local
Eḵšīd dynasty. The town on the site of
Afrāsīāb is surrounded by a double wall
with moats having four gates—of
Bokhara, China, Kaš and Nowbahār. In
the eastern part of Afrāsīāb were situated
metalworkers’ and potters’ workshops with
two-storied kilns.
The residential quarter of the aristocracy
and the palace complex of the Eḵšīds with
reception halls, surrounding passages, and
out-buildings have been explored in the
center of the site. The main hall of the
palace was ornamented with monumental
wall paintings.
There are scenes of a solemn procession,
the bringing of gifts in visitations to the
ruler of Samarqand Varhuman by envoys
from various countries, including
Čaḡānīān (indicated by a Sogdian
inscription).

43. Apparently to this period belong the
wooden sculptures of animals preparing
for combat which were set up in the town
square; they are recorded by Ebn Ḥawqal
in the 4th-10th century. Terracottas
attain exceptional variety; there are
statuettes of Sogdian and Turk horsemen,
youths and young girls in royal headdress
with symbolic ornaments, demonic
creatures, and a Sogdian paladin
accoutered and armed.
Remains of bones, preserved according to
Zoroastrian custom, were frequently
placed in ossuaries with modeled
ornamentation; particularly expressive
are small, Orphean-type, sorrowing
heads.
In the year 93/712 Samarqand was
conquered by the Arabs. The walls of
Afrāsīāb were partly destroyed by them
after a rising of the inhabitants, and the
main Sogdian temple was converted into a
mosque. The town was largely

44. depopulated, and Arab cemeteries
appeared in the waste spaces. The
situation changes in the 3rd-4th/9th-
10th centuries, when Samarqand became
part of the Samanid possessions.
This period is marked by prosperity, and
Afrāsīāb then became known as the
šahrestān of Samarqand. The entire area
was again surrounded by a wall with
four gates (of Bokhara, the East,
Nowbahārān, and Iron). In the northern
part arose the citadel (kohandez) with its
two gates, the palace of the ruler, and the
prison.
A water supply was ensured by the
ancient leaden aqueduct, which
distributed through three main branches.
From the south and west of Afrāsīāb a
trade and craft suburb grew up,
surrounded (together with gardens and
estates) by its own wall, Dīvār-e Qīāmat.
In several parts of the ruined site
inhabited quarters of the time have been

45. uncovered, showing streets, stone
pavements, water conduits, and sewers.
Oriental geographers of the 4th/10th
century mention in Samarqand (at
Afrāsīāb) a Friday mosque, the palace of
the Samanids, castles, and caravansaries.
The excavation of the palace, with its vast
audience hall, large dwelling house with
an ayvān, and square, domed reception
room, brought to light rich decoration—
stucco carved into stylized plant and
geometrical designs.
A potters’ quarter covering an area of
4,000 square meters has been explored. It
contained some fifteen ceramicists’
households yielding highly artistic glazed
pottery.
In the middle of the 5th/11th century
under the Qarakhanid Tamḡač Khan
Ebrāhīm (r. 444-60/1052-68) and at
the beginning of the 7th/13th under the
Ḵᵛārazmšāh Sultan Moḥammad (r. 596-
617/1200-28), attempts were made to

46. transform Afrāsīāb into a new
administrative center.
Building activity increased in the 5th-
6th/11th-12th centuries, but mainly
outside the limits of Afrāsīāb in the
inhabited šahr-e bīrūn, while Afrāsīāb
remained on the whole an enclosed
administrative and defensive center.
A cathedral mosque was enlarged and to
a great extent rebuilt. In the 6th/12th
century there developed the cult of Šāh-e
Zenda (“the Living King”) around the
spurious tomb of Qoṯam b. ʿAbbās; a
mausoleum was built over it, and several
other buildings (partly preserved) were
erected: a madrasa, a minaret, and an
ayvān with some carved wooden details.
The palace of the Qarakhanid rulers was
constructed at Afrāsīāb, as well as the
mausoleum of the Qarakhanid Ebrāhīm
b. Ḥasan, which is faced with tiles of
carved terracotta.

47. In Moḥarram, 617/March, 1220
Samarqand was seized by the army of
Čingiz Khan and destroyed. After that
event life in Afrāsīāb never recovered,
and the town became a ruined site. In the
9th/15th century Afrāsīāb is mentioned
under the name of Bālā Ḥeṣār as a
“fortress of former days.”
Some of the poor lived in cave dwellings
on its sheer loess slopes, while the
building of the Šāh-e Zenda complex
still proceeded on the southern slope of
the weather-beaten medieval wall. Under
Tīmūr and Uluḡ Beg there arose along a
paved path and steps a group of
mausoleums, memorial mosques, and
domed passages (čārṭāqs) brightly faced
with glazed tiles.
Up to the 20th century a cemetery spread
out over the waste area around Šāh-e
Zenda. Among the few later erections at
Afrāsīāb are the madrasa and summer
mosque of Šāh-e Zenda, the tomb of Ḵᵛāǰ a

48. Dānīāl in the northern area of the ruins,
and the mosque of Ḥażrat-e Ḵeżr (second
half of the 19th century, rebuilt in 1919
by the architect ʿAbd-al-Qāder b. Bāqī
Samarqandī).
Since 1923 the ruins of Afrāsīāb have
been under state protection, and in 1966
the site was declared a state archeological
reserve. The Afrāsīāb Museum was
founded there, housing the material of
many years’ archeological research.
Bibliography:
Afrasiaba. Sborniki I-IV, Tashkent, 1969-
75.
I. Akhrarov and L. Rempel, Reznoĭ shtuk
Afrasiaba, Tashkent, 1971.
L. I. Albaum, Zhivopis’ Afrasiaba,
Tashkent, 1975.
Yu. F. Buryakov and M. Taguiev, “O
kangue-kushanskikh sloyakh Afrasiaba
(po materialam arkheologicheskikh

49. raskopok 1968 g.),” Obshchestvennye
nauki v Uzbekistane, 1968, no. 8, pp.
58-60.
M. I. Fedorov, “Afrasiabskiĭ klad zolotykh
monet vtoroĭ poloviny XII v.,” Epigrafika
vostoka 21, 1972, pp. 32-34.
S. K. Kabanov, “Izuchenie stratigrafii
gorodishcha Afrasiab,” Sovetskaya
arkheologiya, 1969, no. 1, pp. 183-98.
Idem and G. V. Shishkina, “Drevneĭshie
nasloeniya gorodishcha Afrasiab,”
Obshchestvennye nauki v Uzbekistane,
1968, no. 3, pp. 53-55.
M. E. Masson, “K periodizatsii drevneĭ
istorii Samarkanda,” VDI, 1950, no. 4,
pp. 155-66.
Meshkeris, Terrakotty Samarkandskogo
Muzeya, Leningrad, 1962.
N. B. Nemtseva and Yu. Z. Shvab,
Ansambl’ Shahi-Zinda, Tashkent, 1979.

50. V. A. Shishkin, Afrasiab—
sokrovishchnitsa drevneĭ kultury,
Tashkent, 1966. G. V. Shishkina,
Glazurovannaya keramika Sogda,
Tashkent, 1979.
Idem, “O mestonakhozhdenii Marakandy
(arkheologicheskie dannye o drevnem
Samarkande I tysyacheletiya do n.e.),”
Sovetskaya arkheologiya, 1969, no. 1, pp.
62-75.
Idem, “Ellinisticheskaya keramika
Afrasiaba,” Sovetskaya arkheologiya,
1972, no. 2, pp. 60-79.
S. S. Tashkhozhaev, Khudozhestvennaya
polivnaya keramika Samarkanda IX-
nachalo XIII v., Tashkent, 1967.
A. I. Terenozhkin, “Voprosy istorii ob
arkheologicheskoĭ periodizatsii drevnego
Samarkanda,” VDI, 1947, no. 4, pp. 127-
35.

51. Idem, “Voprosy periodizatsii i khronologii
drevneĭshego Samarkanda,” Sovetskaya
arkheologiya, 1972, no. 3, pp. 90-99.
V. L. Vyatkin, Afrasiab—gorodishche
drevnego Samarkanda, Samarkand and
Tahskent, 1927.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/afr
asiab-the-ruined-site