The urban phenomenon in pre-Islamic Central Asia : diachronic and synchronic approaches (continued) (6)

Frawardīn is the first month of the Zoroastrian year, and the gift in question took place during the New Year cycle, which occupied the first six days.

Apart from the royal milieu, there are two other clear indications of the importance of Zoroastrianism in ancient Khorezm. One is the onomastics known from small inscriptions from several sites between the end of the ^3rd c. BC and the end of the ^3rd c. AD, which uniformly include a significant proportion of names of calendar deities (plus Wakhsh, the deified Oxus). The other factor is the funerary practice of the general population, not only ossuaries (not strictly provided for in the canonical prescriptions and not certainly attested before the ^4th century B.C.), but also the "Towers of Silence". A monumental example of the latter survives at Chil'pyk near the right bank, probably in use from the ^4th to the ^8th century, with features that closely resemble the Gujarati towers archaeologically attested from the ^17th century onwards: radiating compartments designed to hold individual bodies, the sāgri (fire chamber) in front of the entrance.

Taking all these facts into account, we can envisage three possible solutions for Koj-Krylgan-Kala:

• In the period in question, the Khorezm kings combined Zoroastrian affiliation with funerary practices inherited from a nomadic past;
• A central kingship with Achaemenid cultural heritage and Zoroastrian affiliation coexisted with frontier chieftains of nomadic origin;
• Koj-Krylgan-kala is not a funerary monument. In this case, a frontier ganzak (treasure/arsenal)?

The first capital: Akchakhan-kala

It had escaped Tolstov's notice and was discovered in 1997 by the Karakalpako-Australian Mission, which has been excavating it ever since. A presentation in French, very complete at the time, was given in 2010 at the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres [2]; it was summarized in the lecture and I refer the reader to it, confining myself here to highlighting certain problematic or new elements.

Site morphology: the fortified system is marked by a succession of enclosures. On the outside, at least on the north side, there's a shield wall that was not only designed to contain the advancing sand, but was also equipped with archères; behind it, the square ensemble formed by the lower town and the upper town, fortified by the former and occupying the north-western corner, itself occupied in this corner by the "ceremonial complex". In detail, the fortification of the upper town displays innovations clearly influenced by Greece, in particular the proteichisma, a paved, elevated, covered road with a double moat - a system designed to prevent siege engines from approaching. The site was built at the end of the ^3rd century or perhaps during the ^2nd century, in which case it would be contemporary with the Parthian power, the relay of Hellenistic military art to the north?

But what did these enclosures actually contain? Nothing other than ceremonial and/or official buildings have been found in the upper town, while the interior of the lower town remains unknown. The only residential buildings found are outside the walls.

[1] V.A. Livshits, "Three silver bowls from the Isakovka burial-ground No. 1 with Khwarezmian and Parthian inscriptions", Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 9, 2003, pp. 147-172 (inscription no. 1).

[2] F. Kidd, A. Betts, " Entre le fleuve et la steppe : nouvelles perspectives sur le Khorezm ancien ", CRAI, 2010 [2011], p. 637-686 (with all previous bibliography). For an overview of the function of Khorezm fortified enclosures, see also M. Negus-Cleary, "Khorezmian walled sites of the seventh century BC - fourth century AD: Urban settlements ? Elite strongholds ? Mobile centers?", Iran, 51, 2013, pp. 71-100.