Abstract
In both Tokharestān and Sogdiana, the process of "digesting" the nomadic contributions that had followed the fall of Greek domination appeared to be complete.
In the Tokharestān of the right bank, we have the well-studied example of the Bishkent valley: from the 1st century B.C. to the 2ndcentury A.D., it was occupied by nomads who had settled in for the long term, coexisting with sedentary villages. Not all were military; they used pottery from neighboring villages. In the south, the heart of Kushan-Sassanid power, it seems as if the momentum of the Kushans' imperial grandeur continues. The oversized ramparts of the new foundations (Qala-i Zal, already Zadiyan in Kushan times) attest to their confidence in the future. Two rural areas surveyed, Eastern Bactria (Gardin-Lyonnet) and Surkhan-Darya (Stride), reveal a "full world", at least at the same level as in the Kushan period.
In Sogdiana, the apparently pacified presence of nomads can be seen again: necropolises on the outskirts of the Bukhara oasis coexisted with small urban sites until the 4thcentury ; nomadic artistic culture is attested near Samarkand by the Orlat plaques, with stylistic devices that Sogdian painting inherited from the moment it appeared. The weight of the nomadic element seems stronger than in the south. The Sogdian principalities that emerged after the Greek period (Samarkand, Bukhara, Kashkadarya) were incorporated, to an uncertain degree, into the Kangju confederation, hence the presence of a "Sarmatian"-type onomastics (otherwise known as "Pontic") in the ruling aristocracy. Samarkand remains, but much smaller than in Hellenistic times. At that time, there were no quality buildings to be seen (although these may have been obliterated by the extensive remodelling of the 7thcentury ). Throughout Sogdiana, this was accompanied by a long, artistically mediocre period, with virtually unchanging ceramics from the 2nd to the5th century (the so-called "Afrasiab IV" period). No new fortifications, urban or otherwise, can be attributed to the period from the Hellenistic era to the 3rdcentury , in stark contrast to the situation to the south. Was the Kangju, confident of its strength, the main threat to the Kushans? Other clues belie the idea of stagnation across the board. At a time that we'd like to be able to specify more precisely, but which we place in any case in the period 100-250, the Sogdian principalities coalesced with the Chāch (Tashkent) had the resources to found small fortified towns far out on the steppe front [6]. From the 3rdcentury onwards, the existence of Sogdian settlements on the Chinese branch of the "Silk Road" is discernible, although the major route described by Ptolemy passed through Kushan territory.
