Iran

Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies

ISSN: 0578-6967 (Print) 2396-9202 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rirn20

Religious Landscape of the Ancient Merv Oasis

Barbara Kaim & Maja Kornacka

To cite this article: Barbara Kaim & Maja Kornacka (2016) Religious Landscape of the Ancient
Merv Oasis, Iran, 54:2, 47-72

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/05786967.2016.11879213

Published online: 13 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rirn20

Download by: [89.75.124.87] Date: 31 October 2017, At: 07:02

 RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE OF THE ANCIENT MERV OASIS

By Barbara Kaim and Maja Kornacka

University of Warsaw

Abstract
Situated on north-eastern outskirts of the Iranian oecumene, Merv and its oasis (ancient Margiana) played an
important role in the history of the ancient Iranian empires, not only for strategic reasons but also for their
location at the crossroads of routes that once attracted traders, missionaries, and adherents of various religions
and cults. Textual and archaeological evidence actually indicates that at least from the Parthian period on-
wards, ancient Merv and the Merv oasis were home to people of various nationalities and faiths ranging from
Zoroastrianism to Christianity, Judaism, Manichaeism, and Buddhism. The paper is a review of the religious
situation in the region based on a broad range of historical and archaeological evidence. Chronologically it
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017

covers the period from the mid-second century BC, when Margiana was incorporated into the expanding
Parthian state, to the mid-seventh century AD, i.e. the death of the last Sasanian ruler, Yazdegerd III (633–51)
and the arrival of Islam.

Keywords
Ancient Merv: religions: Parthian and Sasanian empires

INTRODUCTION
The ancient site of Merv, which comprises a citadel
(Erk Kala) and a lower city (Gyaur Kala) (Fig. 1), is
situated in the east-central part of the oasis formed
by the Murghab River originating in the slopes of
Koh-e Baba (Hindu Kush) and disappearing into the
Karakum Desert (Fig. 2). The location of Merv in the
fertile oasis on the way to the heart of Central Asia
ensured its importance in strategic, military, and com-
mercial contexts. Several communication and trade
routes traversed the area. One was a main branch of
what is known as the Silk Road, leading from China
to the eastern Mediterranean Sea. These routes were
used not only by armies or merchants but also by
missionaries and adherents of various religions, who

Fig. 1. Ancient Merv: a satellite image showing the

location of two Buddhist stupas constructed during the
Sasanian period. When the region became part of the Se-
leucid Empire, the oldest part of the city of Merv, Erk Kala,
founded during the Achaemenid period, was converted
into a citadel, and a new walled city, Antiochia Margiana
(present-day Gyaur Kala), was built. It comprises remains Fig. 2. A map of Turkmenistan showing the location of
of the Hellenistic, Parthian, and Sasanian city. ancient Merv.
Iran LIV.II 2016, 47–72 © 2016 The British Institute of Persian Studies
 48 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
were spreading new ideas, establishing and fostering
their religious communities. It is not unlikely that the
same phenomenon was occurring for other conven-
iently located cities of Khorasan, such as Nishapur,
Merv-e-Rud, or Herat; despite a steady progress in
archaeological work, however, it is only Merv itself
and its immediate surroundings that are relatively well
investigated, with archaeological excavation and ex-
ploration pending since the nineteenth century.
Given its location, on the one hand Merv was an
ideal starting point to enter Central Asia, but on the
other hand, a considerable physical distance from
main political and administrative centres of successive
Iranian empires might have caused a certain isolation
that was likely to drive acculturation among various
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
religious communities, or adaptation to living in
culture-contact settings. This study aims to identify
links between the religious situation at Merv and the
religious policies of the central state authorities of the
Arsacid and Sasanian empires, as well as to explore
inter-relations among specific religious communities
living there. As most of the evidence known so far
comes from or concerns the Sasanian period, we are
much better informed about religious life in Merv
during this period than the previous one.
HISTORICAL SETTING
With the onset of historical tradition, Merv became
one of the major centres of ancient Margiana. The first
mention of Margiana is found in written sources data-
ble to the reign of Darius I the Great: under the name of
“Margu”, Margiana occurs in the Behistun Inscription
and denotes the province which revolted under Frada
and was subsequently regained for the king by the sa-
trap of Bactria, Dadarshi. It is likely that Margiana was
subsequently a garrison location for troops of Alexan-
der the Great. Antiochus I (281–261 BC) refounded
the city as Antioch-Margiana I (today a part of ancient
Merv, called Gyaur Kala) and constructed a wall to
enclose the Merv oasis.1 Apparently, it was Antiochus’
son, Antiochus II, who lost Margiana to rulers of a
newly established Greco-Bactrian kingdom, as proved
by numismatic evidence from Merv for Diodotus I and
1 Pliny N.H. 6.47; Strabo 11.10.2; Isidore of Charaks 415.
For opposing views about Alexandria Margiana, see Cohen
2013: 245–50. Remains of the wall have been archaeologi-
cally identified, see Koshelenko et al. 1995a.
II (250–235) to Eucratides I (170–145).2 Later, Mar-
giana was incorporated into the Parthian empire but
the precise date of the Parthian conquest of Margiana
remains unknown. Perhaps it was under Phraates II
(138–127) as no Parthian coins from Merv have come
to light that predate the coinage of Phraates II.3 It is
not unlikely, however, that Margiana was taken earlier,
soon after Mithridates I defeated Eucratides.4 Owing
to its specific location, Merv clearly had a significant
strategic value during the Parthian period. It was a
stopover destination for caravan merchants travelling
from China. Chinese sources mention the city of Merv
and its hinterland under the names of Mulu and Lesser
Anxi respectively.5
Yet it is essential to recognise that Merv is very
rarely mentioned in written sources, given the role it
played. Thus, reconstruction of the history of Parthian
Merv relies almost entirely on conjectures relating
to issues of the local mint. Phraates IV (c. 37–2) was
the last Arsacid ruler to strike silver coins with the П
mark at Merv. Sometime later, the same mark would
reappear either on official bronze issues or on local
imitations struck at Merv.6 Between the first half of the
first century and the Sasanian conquest, the mark can
be found on bronze drachms portraying local rulers
who are likely to be descendants of the side branch of
the Arsacid family.7
After the fall of the Parthians, Merv became a
part of the Sasanian empire under the Sasanian dy-
nasty’s founder, Ardashir I (224–41 AD). The eastern
campaign of Ardashir I is mentioned by the ninth/
tenth-century historian Tabari,8 while the early pres-
ence of Sasanians in the region is evidenced by bronze
coins of Ardashir I struck at Merv.9 The inscription of
Shapur I on the Kaʿba-ye Zardosht at Naqsh-e Rostam
(ŠKZ) mentions Ardashir, the king of Merv, from the
entourage of Ardashir, son of Shapur I, as a governor
of Merv.10 It seems, however, that Sasanians did not
ultimately consolidate their power until Shapur I, as
2 Smirnova 2007: 379–81.
3 Smirnova 2007: 382–83.
4 Justin, XLI, 6.
5 Wang 2007: 96–97.
6 Loginov and Nikitin 1996; Alram 1998: 371–372.
7 Koshelenko 1966a: 67–69; Pilipko 1980: 106–24; Senior
2001: type 266.
8 Nöldeke 1879: 17.
9 Loginov and Nikitin 1986; Carter 1990: 13; Schindel 2010:
23.
10 Brunner 1983: 729; Huyse 1999: 54, ŠKZ § 41.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
Tabari states that Shapur had to quell a rebellion in
Khorasan in his eleventh year.11 This information is
confirmed by the Pahlavi treatise Shatroiha-i Airan
which links the location of the city of Nishapur with
the place where Shapur killed his enemy Palizak Tur.12
Combined with the negative numismatic evidence
of local rulers,13 no mention of any later revolts in
Khorasan indicates that it was Shapur I who managed
to take direct control of Merv. From that moment on
through the reign of Bahram V, the Merv mint pro-
duced the coinage of Sasanian rulers.14 It was also at
Merv that coins of Kushano-Sasanians or the Kushan-
shahs were minted. Schindel believes that the rarity
of Kushano-Sasanian coins at Merv proves they were
minted solely for Bactria,15 while Nikitin suggests
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
that Merv might have been temporarily governed by
Kushano-Sasanians and then returned under the direct
rule of Sasanians.16
During the reign of Shapur II, a new dangerous
neighbour emerged on the eastern frontiers of the
empire, the Chionites.17 Between AD 356 and 358,
Shapur II was engaged in a prolonged struggle in the
most distant territories of his dominion, which were
occupied by Chionites and Kushans.18 In AD 358, the
Chionites concluded an agreement with Shapur II,
thereby recognising Sasanian authority, at least for
some time. In 359, Grumbates, king of the Chionites,
assisted Shapur II with his troops in the siege of Ami-
da. But towards the end of his reign, Shapur II still had
to campaign twice against “Kushans”.19 Apparently,
11 Shahbazi 2005.
12 Modi 1905: 164.
13 Schindel 2010.
14 Schindel 2004, I: 495–501; 2004, II: pl. 142; Loginov and
Nikitin (1993: 228) believe that small copper coins show-
ing the king’s bust on the obverse and the king on horseback
with the Pahlavi inscription mlwy MLK on the reverse were
struck by either Ardashir, the king of Merv, who was the
local ruler of Merv mentioned in the Naqsh-e Rustam In-
scription, or by his successor. Schindel (2010) attributes the
coins to Shapur I.
15 Schindel 2012: 66–67.
16 Nikitin 1999: 261.
17 Scholars differ on whether opponents of Bahram were the
Chionites or the Kidarites. Marquart (1914: 71) suggested
they were the Chionites, while Grenet (2002: 208) and
Vaissière (2003: 108) both opt for the Kidarites. Tremblay
(2001: 188) believes that the Kidarites were a clan of the
Chionites, while Grenet (2005) suggests that the Kidatites
“emerged” from the Chionites.
18 Ammianus Marcellinus 16.9.3–4; 17.5.1.
19 Frye (1984: 345), Schindel (2004: 246, 282), and Tremblay
49
Shapur II was successful, because no source mentions
any confrontation in the east between 375 and 425.
It was not until Bahram V (420–38) that full-scale
difficulties with controlling eastern frontiers recurred.
Large quantities of silver drachms found at Merv
allow us to view the city as having played an impor-
tant role in Sasanian military expeditions against the
Chionites/Kidarites.20 A decisive battle is supposed to
have taken place at Kushmayhan which was probably
located north-east of the city.21 Merv most likely lost
its prominence in 454 when the successor of Bahram
V, Yazdegerd II (439–57), was forced to retreat to
the core territory of the empire after initial victories
over the Chionites. According to Zeimal, anonymous
bronze coins with a fork-like device on the obverse,
which appeared at Merv during the reign of Yazdegerd
II, as well as irregular issues of Yazdegerd II, suggest
that Sasanians might even have lost control of Khoras-
an for some time.22
Peroz I (459–84), son of Yazdegerd II, managed
to eliminate the threat of the Chionites and regained
Merv, but he had to recognise the superiority of the
new power, the Hephthalites.23 Ultimately, the country
was overwhelmed by poverty and the turmoil of wars
and Peroz was killed in battle. The absence of Sasani-
an coins minted at Merv between the death of Peroz
and the 24th year of Kavad I, AD 508,24 would suggest
(2006: 221) believe that the mention actually refers to the
Chionites. Cribb claims that these were the Kidarites (2010:
115), while Alram and Pfisterer (2010: 14–15, 18) do not
rule out that Ammianus actually meant a group of Alkhan
Huns, while writing about the Kushans.
20 Schindel 2004: 365–66.
21 Bosworth 1999: 96, no. 246; Ferdowsi 7: 1545. For locali-
sation of Kushmayhan, see Le Strange 1905: 400.
22 Zeimal 1996: 246; Loginov and Nikitin 1993: 273; Smirno-
va 2007: 387.
23 Originating in Mongolia, the Hephthalites took Bactria
from the Kidarites in the early fifth century, thereby starting
to build a powerful kingdom across almost the entire Cen-
tral Asia, reaching as far as the Tarim Basin. According to
Tabari, Peroz took refuge with the king of the Hephthalites
after his brother Ohrmazd III (457–59) seized the throne
(Bosworth 1999: 107, n. 275). Schindel (2004: 388–89),
however, believes that Peroz ascended the throne right after
the death of his father; for a contrary view, see Sims-Wil-
liams 2008: 93–94.
24 Schindel 2005: 296. As coins of Kavad restarted at Merv
as well as at Herat and Abarshahr in the year 24 of Kavad,
Schindel (2006: 684–85) supposes that the reappearance
of the coins corresponded with the king’s actual return to
Khorasan.
 50 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
that the Hephthalites controlled Khorasan in the late
fifth and first half of the sixth century.25
So significantly weakened by wars, Iran saw
Mazdakism with its anti-elitist approach rising to
prominence.26 Reforms were needed to strengthen
the position of the king, improve state finances, and
reinforce the army. Initiated by Kavad I (484, 488–97,
499–531), the reforms were completed by Kavad’s
son, Khosrow I Anoshiravan (531–79), who, in alli-
ance with the Turks, finally crushed the Hephthalites
in 560. Meanwhile, silver denominations began
again at Merv in 508. Apparently, the city regained
its former position. It is not unlikely that Kavad’s
reforms, which led to the division of the empire into
four quarters (kusts) governed by chiefs of the army
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
(spahbads) might have made Merv one of four major
military centres.27 The Armenian historian Sebeos
mentions that some part of the Sasanian army settled
in the region of Merv and Merv-e-Rud under Khosrow
II Parviz (590–628) following the final defeat of the
Hephthalites.28 Merv also continued as an important
cultural centre of the region. It is suggested that many
philosophers were received at Gondeshapur and Merv
after the closure of the famous Athenian Academy in
529 by the Emperor Justinian.29 Sasanian rule in the
Merv oasis finally ended in 651 with the assassination
of the last Sasanian king, Yazdegerd III (633–51), and
the capture of the city by Arabs.30
RELIGIOUS POLICIES OF THE ARSACIDS
AND SASANIANS
It is not the authors’ intention to discuss all aspects
of religious policies of the Arsacids and Sasanians in
detail as these are already covered by many excellent
studies.31 Nevertheless, a short introduction seems
necessary in order to understand the religious pres-
ence at Merv and the extent to which the religious
environment at Merv was determined by the official
religious strategies. We should, however, remember
that some religious practices or doctrines (including
25 Callieri 1996: 397; Vaissière 2005: 232.
26 Yarshater 1983.
27 Fiey 1979: 76.
28 Thomson and Howard-Johnston 1999: 52–53.
29 Roques 2013: 149.
30 Pourshariati 2008: 257–63.
31 See e.g. Brock 1982; Rist 1996: 17–42; Brody 1990; Shaked
1994, 2010; McDonough 2011: 303–05; de Jong 2015.
specifically those developed within main streams,
such as Zurvanism, Mazdakism within Zoroastrian-
ism, or Melkites and Jacobites within Christianity)
left so little evidence behind that it is impossible, or
virtually impossible, to reconstruct their presence on
the territories of the Arsacids or Sasanians.
Despite the scarcity of sources for religious prac-
tices of the Arsacid court, it is commonly accepted
that Arsacids were followers of the Zoroastrian faith
although they were also attached to the Hellenistic tra-
dition.32 The Arsacid rulers tolerated cults of non-Zo-
roastrian deities, trying to win the loyalty of their sub-
jects without interfering in their religious life. But for
the Sasanians, the religion became an important tool to
consolidate the empire. So, although the principle of
religious tolerance was adopted, relationships between
the state and non-Zoroastrian religious communities
were shifting, primarily reflecting changes in the
external or/and internal political situation during the
Sasanian period.
There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests the
persecution of any religious groups under Ardashir
I, Shapur I, or Hormozd I. Although those rulers
adopted the meaningful title of mzdysn (Mazda-wor-
shipping), they benevolently tolerated the presence
of non-Zoroastrians within their empire. In addition
to the Zoroastrian clergy members such as Kartir,
the immediate entourage of Shapur I included Rab-
bi Samuel (d. c. 257)33 and the Prophet Mani. Mani
travelled with the king, taking part in the campaigns
against Rome and, most importantly, freely preaching
with his disciples, thereby successfully gaining new
followers. At the time Shapur I died and his son, Hor-
mozd, I ascended the throne, Mani’s followers were
present in every part of the Sasanian realm, including
its extremities. Rapidly spreading, Manichaeism gave
rise to concern among the Zoroastrian clergy. On
the advice of Kartir but at the command of Bahram
I (271–74), Mani was imprisoned and subsequently
executed at Gondeshapur. Under Bahram II (274–93)
Mar Sisin, who became an appointed head of the
Church shortly before Mani’s death, received the
same fate.34 Persecutions also included Christians,
although the Chronicle of Se’ert asserts that Bahram
II was initially favourably disposed towards Christi-
anity, but the repression struck both religions as soon
32 Metzler 2012.
33 Neusner 1966: 65–71.
34 Henning 1942; 1957: 119–21.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
as he became aware that Manichaeans considered
themselves Christians. 35
In his inscriptions, Kartir proudly says that he was
actively promoting Zoroastrianism under Bahram II as
he did under the king’s predecessors, and “Jews and
Buddhists and Hindus and Nazarenes and Christians
and Baptists and Manichaeans are being smitten in the
empire through his efforts”.36 While the words of Kartir
about the oppressive approach towards Manichaeans
and Christians are confirmed by other sources, there is
no evidence to prove alleged persecutions of Jews, Bud-
dhists, and Hindus.37 If anything, it seems that his aim
may have been the suppression of others religions rather
than their elimination, and their subordination to the Zo-
roastrian institutions.38 Whatever the case, it is certain
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
that Kartir’s actions did not result in the elimination of
Christian or Manichaean communities from the empire.
While Narseh (293–302) discontinued the persecution
of the Manichaeans, the Zoroastrian clergy under his
successor, Hormozd II (302–09), were adamant that
Manichaeism should be annihilated as they considered
it a threat to Zoroastrianism.39 For Christians, years of
serenity came to an end with Shapur II (309–79). When
the emperor Constantine the Great (307–37) converted
to Christianity and made it a state religion of the Roman
Empire, Christians in Iran started to be seen as potential
supporters of the Romans, most notably because Con-
stantine claimed to be a protector of all Christians, and
many Christians in the Sasanian empire did not conceal
their sympathies with the emperor and tended to de-
spise Zoroastrians.40 All this coincided with a period of
ferocious struggles with Rome. Consequently, the first
wave of persecution of Christians took place in year 31
of Shapur II, 340/341, soon after an unsuccessful siege
of Nisibis by the Sasanian army and several years after
the demise of Constantine the Great (337). Followers
of Christ faced extremely heavy tax burdens and many
of them were imprisoned or lost their lives. The perse-
cution continued until the death of Shapur II in 379, as
did the struggles with Rome. Jews and Manichaeans
also suffered persecution, although not as heavily as
the Christians.41
35 Scher 1907: 237–39.
36 MacKenzie 1989; Gignoux 1991.
37 de Jong 2004: 51.
38 Payne 2015: 24.
39 Schmidt and Polotsky 1933: 29.
40 Labourt 1904: 48–49; Christensen 1944: 249–50, 266–68;
Brock 1982: 6.
41 Herman 2010.
51
A change in imperial policy towards non-Zoro-
astrian religions occurred only under Yazdegerd I
(399–421) who restored the freedom of belief for all
and was hailed as the new Cyrus by Jews42 and praised
by Christians.43 In 410, the Synod of Mar Ishaq was
convened under the auspices of Yazdegerd I and start-
ed with a prayer for the king. The Synod established
an independent hierarchy for the Eastern Church with
its head officially seated at Ctesiphon.44 According to
the church historian Theodoret (c. 393–c. 458), in the
last years of the reign of Yazdegerd, the king’s tolerant
approach towards Christianity changed after Chris-
tians had allegedly destroyed a fire temple.45
Repressive practices against Jews and Christians con-
tinued, with greater or lesser intensity46, until Khosrow
I Anoshiravan (531–79) who showed pragmatic mercy
(in the context of the anti-Manichaean efforts of the
emperors Justin and Justinian) towards Manichaeans.
Under the peace treaty of 562 between Khosrow I and
Justinian, Christians were permitted to build churches
and worship freely, while being prohibited from con-
verting Zoroastrians to Christianity.47 Nevertheless, acts
of martyrs record incidents of harassment and execution
usually targeted at high-ranking members of the Chris-
tian clergy in the tenth year of Khosrow I and under
Khosrow II (590–628).48 In 595, the patriarch Sabrisho
persuaded Khosrow II to grant Christians freedom of
activity, which resulted in the conversion of many mem-
bers of noble Persian families to the Christian faith.49
In 609 the nominee for the Catholicos, supported by
Khosrow II, was rejected. The rejection irritated Khos-
row II to such an extent that he prevented the election of
any other, leaving the Christians without a leader until
his death. Relationships between Khosrow II and the
Jewish community were even less favourable. In 590,
probably in revenge for the Jews’ support of Bahram,
the opposition candidate for the throne, the last Jewish
leader in Babylonia was executed.50
42 Neusner 1970: 9–13. Known as Queen Shushandukht, the
wife of Yazdegerd I was a daughter of the Jewish exilarch
Shoshannah.
43 Eilers 1983: 485.
44 Asmussen 1983.
45 Eusebius V, 9.1–6.
46 About persecutions during the reign of Yazdegerd II, see
McDonough 2006.
47 Winter and Dignas 2001: 225.
48 Walker 2006: 208–09; Scher 1908: 498, 501.
49 Brock 1982: 6, n. 17.
50 Neusner 1970: 127.
 52 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
Successors of Khosrow II reigned too briefly to
focus on the religious policy of the increasingly weak-
ened empire. The last Sasanian king, Yazdegerd III,
was killed at Merv and Sasanian rule ultimately ended
in 651.
As mentioned above, the incidents of religious
persecution did not hinder the social or political in-
tegration of Christian and Jewish communities within
the Sasanian empire.51
As reconstructed by scholars, the picture of
non-Zoroastrian communities in the Sasanian state is
certainly incomplete, as sources remain scarce, with
Christian-related information prevailing. Moreover,
most of the sources are relevant to the religious com-
munities of Babylonia. Almost absent is the written
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
record documenting interactions among religious
communities in remote provinces of the empire and
between those communities and the central adminis-
tration. This is especially true for eastern provinces,
including the Merv oasis where Zoroastrianism,
Christianity, Manichaeism, and Judaism continued
alongside Buddhism, automatically adding complex-
ity to the relations.
RELIGIOUS LANDSCAPE OF PARTHIAN
AND SASANIAN MERV
The scantiness of sources prevents any precise and
thorough reconstruction of the religious landscape of
the Merv oasis of the Parthian and Sasanian periods.
Moreover, the available sources are usually on major
religions, somehow neglecting the fact that adher-
ents of such religions coexisted alongside those who
fostered ancient Hellenistic traditions or belonged to
minor religious factions.
The dearth of written and archaeological sources
is particularly severe when it comes to reconstruct-
ing the religious life of the Parthian period. The
epigraphic evidence from ancient Merv consists of
nothing except several ostraca with short Parthian
inscriptions. The inscriptions accommodate a typical
formula—“this container belongs to”, followed by the
name of the owner.52 Among eight names occurring on
ostraca, particularly noteworthy is Sesenbaxt (ssnbḥt)
meaning “happiness of Sesen”. The divine name Ses-
en is not mentioned either by Avesta or by any later
51 McDonough 2011: 303–09.
52 Livshits and Nikitin 1994.
Zoroastrian text. As proved by Schwarz, the cult of
Sesen is rooted in the Aramaic cultural environment
of the Near East, with which Parthians came into con-
tact while in Mesopotamia.53 The name Sesen is also
frequent on magical and religious seal-amulets of the
Sasanian period. Gyselen believes that the god Sesen
was a guardian of magical practices, with the name
itself having apotropaic value.54
Some information on the religious life of the Merv
population in the Parthian period can also be inferred
from terracotta figurines discovered at Gyaur Kala.
In addition to typical female representations of “the
goddess of Margiana”, the group includes a headless
standing figurine with a pomegranate in its right hand,
its left hand resting on a sword. Filanovich believes
that the figurine might represent a protecting goddess
of the city, such as Tyche or gadde.55 A seated female,
identified as Tyche, holding a palm branch is depicted
on bullae from the Partho-Sasanian site of Gobelky
Depe,56 while representations of two other Hellenistic
deities, Nike and Heracles, are found on seals from
ancient Merv.57 The presence of Hellenistic deities
combined with Zoroastrian theomorphic names sug-
gests similar religious preferences to those observed
at the royal court.
The picture becomes somewhat clearer for the
Sasanian period to which the overview (see below)
of scientific research made to date on major religions
in the city of Merv, as well as in the Merv oasis, is
therefore primarily linked.
Zoroastrianism
Although sources are scarce, they clearly demonstrate
that Zoroastrianism was a dominant religion at Merv
and in the region as early as the Young Avestan era.
Zoroastrian tradition mentions Merv (Mouru) as one
of sixteen lands created by Ahura Mazda.58 Eastern
Iranian lands, including Mouru, are also mentioned in
Yasht 10–14, which sees Margiana as part of Haraiva
(Aria).59 There is also a brief reference to Zoroastrians
at Merv in Ayadgar i Zareran, a piece of epic poetry
53 Schwarz 1996: 253–54.
54 Gyselen 1995.
55 Filanovich 1974: 85–86.
56 Bader et al. 1995; Koshelenko 2001: 71–77; Gaibov 2007.
57 Pugachenkova 1963: 202–03.
58 Vendidad 1, 5. see Darmesteter 1965: 2.
59 Gershevitch: 81.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
from the sixth century AD, which is an adaptation of
an original text that might have been created as early
as in the third century BC.60 Moreover, Vis o Ramin, a
poem that may also originate from the Parthian period,
mentions the fire temple located in the vicinity of one
of the gates leading to Merv.61 That particular location
for the temple outside the main settlement area con-
forms to what is observed for both the late Parthian
fire temple in the Serakhs oasis south-west of Merv62
and Sasanian temples discovered in the core territory
of the Sasanian empire, usually outside settlements,
sometimes near city gates or even in remote and un-
occupied areas.63
With the Sasanians coming to power, all provinces
of the empire, supposedly including the Merv oasis,
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
saw the strengthening of Zoroastrianism. Among
sources containing references to Zoroastrians at Sasa-
nian Merv, there is an inscription by the priest Kartir
at Naqsh-e Rajab, datable to the late third century AD
and mentioning Merv among numerous places where
Kartir made fire temples and the Magi prosperous.64
Some indirect information can also be found in records
dealing with the activity of the Christian missionary
Barshabba and his efforts to convert Magi at Merv.65
Several Pehlevi ostraca found at Merv, which mention
theophoric Zoroastrian personal names, also bear tes-
timony to the climate of belief prevailing at Merv in
the Sasanian period.
Some additional valuable information on the
Zoroastrian community at Merv comes from archae-
ological excavations in the extramural necropolis
about 4 km west of Gyaur Kala, comprising several
sites numbered from 1 to 6.66 Although archaeological
reports on work done on specific tepes frequently of-
fer confusing information about funeral structures or
burial types, the fact alone that the research was done
60 Benveniste 1932: 256–57; Utas 1975; Koshelenko et al.
1994: 15.
61 Minorsky 1947: 28.
62 Kaim 2004.
63 The practice is certified by Tabari (I, 2682) when he writes
that the Sasanian king Yazdegerd had the sacred fire with
him while fleeing before Arab troops, brought it to Merv,
and installed it in a vaulted building constructed in an
orchard, several kilometres from Merv. Filanovich (1974:
75–76) groundlessly identifies one of the buildings within
the Merv citadel (Erk Kala) as a fire temple.
64 MacKenzie 1989: 32–35.
65 For the legend of Barshabba, see Sims-Williams 1988: 823
(with full bibliography).
66 Koshelenko and Desjatchikov 1966.
53
Fig. 3. A funerary structure at site no. 3 in the extramural
necropolis (adapted from Koshelenko 1985: pl. XCVII, 2;
N.B. scale is approximate).
on the necropolis makes ancient Merv a unique place
to investigate funeral practices and burial customs, in
several consecutive centuries from the Parthian period
until the end of the Sasanian period.
Broadly datable to the Parthian period is a small
naus or Zoroastrian bone depository at site no. 6.67
The description of the structure as provided by the
excavators is very brief and, as such, prevents any de-
tailed analysis. The structure is square in form, with its
interior consisting of one chamber (2.5 × 2.5 m) with a
single bench on the east. Many fragmentary preserved
bones of children were found lying both on the floor
and on the bench. Among the bones, beads and small
bronze bells were identified.
A structure at site no. 3 was built in the second
century BC, according to the excavator,68 but as the
date is determined based on a single coin revealed em-
bedded in the wall, it should be treated with caution.
The excavator distinguishes two construction phases
(Fig. 3). The first phase marked the construction of
a single-chambered structure (9.5 × 9 m) roughly
square in form, on a 1.5 m-high platform of beaten
clay (pakhsa). The inner surface of the chamber was 5
m square with a rectangular arched niche (1.8 m wide
and c. 0.9 m deep) in each wall except the northern
one. The entrance (1 m wide) to the chamber was
on the northern wall. As they are proposed by the
excavator, the versions of roofing reconstruction lack
consistency. In his first publication on the structure,
Koshelenko initially allowed both a barrel vault and
67 Koshelenko and Desjatchikov 1966: 181.
68 Koshelenko 1966a: 90.
 54 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
a dome, finally to assume with no further explanation
that the structure had a domed roof,69 which version is
then repeated in subsequent publications.70
In its second phase datable to the third–fifth centu-
ry AD, the structure was extended to contain three new
rectangular chambers: two flanking the entrance and
one along the eastern wall.71
During the Parthian period, the structure housed
inhumations in pits and bricked graves. Corpses were
also deposited in the side niches. F. Grenet believes
that such a specific burial practice might indicate that
the structure served as a family tomb. Corpses were
placed in the niches as their dimensions are suitable
to accommodate a human body, and when the niches
could no longer offer enough space the remaining space
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
inside the structure was used for burial purposes.72
Later dates are suggested for a scattering of dis-
articulated bones identified in higher layers and for
ossuaries deposited after the structure had fallen into
disrepair: the excavator claims the third to fifth century
AD for both forms of disposal,73 while Grenet suggests
a fifth-century date for the ossuaries only.74
Several funerary structures of the early to late
Sasanian period were identified at site no. 2 (Var-
ryk-depe). Only four one-chambered structures were
partially explored, however, while the presence of
others was determined based on wall fragments un-
earthed. The site had been used as a cemetery since
the late Parthian.75 Unfortunately, details provided by
the excavator are imprecise and usually unsupported
by relevant ground plans. It is also unclear whether
the structures were roofed, and if so, in what way?
This kind of information is essential to determine their
exact purpose. Moreover, the excavator obviously
encountered problems while establishing the archae-
ological stratigraphy of the site.
The only structure at site no. 2, which was rela-
tively well investigated, is given an early Sasanian
date. It was a roughly rectangular mud-brick enclosure
(3.51 × 3.62 m), or fencing, oriented north-east–south-
west.76 It housed large quantities of human bones,
either scattered or in anatomical position. Given the
69 Koshelenko 1966a: 88–89.
70 Koshelenko 1977: 74–75; 1985: 385.
71 Koshelenko 1985: 385, pl. 97.
72 Grenet 1984: 94.
73 Koshelenko 1966a: 88–90.
74 Grenet 1984: 129.
75 Obel’cenko 1969: 96; Grenet 1984: 93.
76 Obel’chenko 1969: 93.
specificity of the structure and the fact that the bones
were identified in an layer which had traces of water
infiltration and, consequently were probably exposed
to the open air, Obel’chenko advances the hypothesis
that the structure was both a naus and a dakhma (tower
of silence) used for exposure of the dead.77
After the structure fell into disrepair at the dawn
of the sixth century AD, a complete human skeleton
was deposited within it in a firebrick-lined grave.
It should be noted that, at that time, firebrick-lined
graves as well as pit burials also occurred elsewhere at
site no. 2, both inside and outside funerary structures.
Corpses were always deposited without grave-goods,
in a supine position, hands along the sides or with one
hand on the chest and the other on the pelvis, the head
usually orientated east-north-east (only three skeletons
were laid north–south with the head to the south).
The first half of the seventh century saw open-air
bone deposits within the ruined structures, while in
the second half of the century bodies were laid in a
radius around the remnants of one of the naus, form-
ing an almost perfect circle with the head towards
the naus. The last period the site was used as a burial
ground and is marked by pit graves with the typical
Muslim orientation of bodies, clay cylinders (head to
the north-east), and remnants of what were probably
firebrick-lined graves (head to the north-east).78
Yet another funerary structure, although poorly
preserved up to one or two courses of bricks, was
discovered at site no. 4. Regrettably, the description
of research work by the excavators is again very
scanty and the corresponding ground plan (without
any explanatory notes) can only be found in a much
later publication of 1985 (Fig. 4).79 It appears that it
was a large and roughly square (19 × 19 m externally)
mud-brick construction set on a hardened clay plat-
form with a height of 0.5 m. Following the central
axis of the structure, the wall divided the structure in
two parts, each containing five elongated rooms with
a maximum wall thickness of 1.2 m. Corpses without
grave-goods were laid out in the rooms. The excava-
tors believe that the structure was built between the
third and fifth century AD, with the early date being
77 Obel’chenko 1969: 94.
78 Generally, the excavator attributes burials with a north-east
orientation at site no. 2 to Christians; Susenkova 1969:
104–06.
79 Koshelenko and Desjatchikov 1966: 179; Koshelenko
1985: 385, pl. 97.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
Fig. 4. A funerary structure at site no. 4 (plan adapted from
Koshelenko 1985: pl. XCVII, 5; N.B. scale is approximate).
more plausible. As soon as the structure fell into de-
cay (between the fifth and seventh century), its ruins
were used for depositing ossuaries.80 Accompanying
the ossuaries were small jars, which might have been
grave-goods or funerary sacrifices.81
The excavators do not clarify whether the structure
originally had an entrance and, if so, where it was.
While the absence of any information on whether the
structure originally had an external wall might be due
to its poor preservation, the mention that the rooms
were roofless is astonishing.82 In this respect, Grenet
points to the striking fact that the excavators do not
advance the hypothesis that the structure might have
been a dakhma.83
Datable to the late Sasanian period is a naus uncov-
ered at site no. 5 of the Merv necropolis. The excavators
identified two phases of occupation between the fifth
and seventh century AD, based on pottery evidence.84
The naus was made of mud brick and positioned on
a 1.4 m-high platform. During the construction of the
platform, two ossuary jars were placed inside it. A
robust wall divided the interior into two complexes,
each further partitioned into two parts with a narrow
transverse wall. Such division of space is somewhat
80 Koshelenko and Desjatchikov 1966: 179.
81 Grenet 1984: 193.
82 Koshelenko and Desjatchikov 1966: 179.
83 Grenet 1984: 130.
84 Koshelenko and Desjatchikov 1966: 180–81.
55
Fig. 5. Phase II of the funerary structure at site no. 1 (plan
adapted from Brykina 1999: pl. 1,7).
similar to what can be seen in the structure at site no.
4 (see above). The larger width of the internal wall
and the smaller width of the external walls, all gave
the excavators reason to suppose that each of the two
complexes had a barrel-vaulted ceiling. All rooms
yielded ossuary jars (2 to 5) as well as concentrations
of human bones, but none of the rooms was complete-
ly full which, in the opinion of the excavators, might
prove that the structure was only used for a short peri-
od of time. When it fell into decay (phase II), its ruins
formed a kind of small mound where ossuary jars were
deposited (total 63). The corresponding archaeological
contexts have also yielded large amounts of irregularly
distributed bones and three pit burials of bones.
One of the largest pre-Islamic funeral structures is
found at site no 1. In its earliest phase—phase III dat-
able to the fifth century AD—it was a roughly square
(34 × 35 m externally) mud-brick building accommo-
dating twenty-four rectangular rooms arranged around
an almost square courtyard (16.5 × 17 m).85 The length
of the rooms varied from 7.20 to 7.60 m, the width
from 1.60 to 3.20 m. Partition walls were 1.40 to 2
m in width. Rooms were accessible either directly or
by passing through another room from the courtyard,
via entrances 0.9 to 1.40 m in width. Moreover, the
north-western corner of the courtyard was occupied by
a rectangular mud-brick platform-like construction (4
× 5 m). Phase III has evidence of 158 burials inside
the rooms, including deposition directly on the floor
(5), in graves constructed of fire brick (17), in clay
cylinders (32), and in jars or ossuaries (104).86 Phase II
85 Ershov 1959: 171, fig. 5, 176–78, 180.
86 Ershov 1959: 171.
 56 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
involved total reconstruction: the remains of the phase
III structure were levelled to form a 1 m-high platform
on which a new building was erected (Fig. 5). Being
almost square (34 × 35 m), it repeated both the ground
plan and orientation of phase III. The preserved height
of the wall did not exceed 45 cm in the south-eastern
sector of the structure and two courses of bricks in
other sectors.87 The width of the external walls was
4.10 m. The walls were constructed using mud bricks
measuring between 36 × 36 × 9 and 38 × 38 × 10 cm.
Based on what was preserved from the walls and how
burials were distributed, the excavator assumed that
the interior space of the structure was arranged as a
series of rooms around an open courtyard, thereby
repeating the layout of phase III.88 Burials inside the
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
building were under a layer of soft soil and brick
fragments identified by the excavator with a collapsed
wall and roof remains.89 A total of 1021 burials were
identified, including deposition on the floor (20), in
clay cylinders (20), and in ossuaries or jars (981).
Based on two Sasanian silver coins, one of Kavad I
and one of Khosrow I, and pottery parallels yielded
by Gyaur Kala, a sixth- to seventh-century AD date is
given to phase II by the excavator.90
Although the structure lasted into phase I, it was
largely destroyed by bulldozers making way for a
modern construction, thus preventing any in-depth
archaeological research. The surface exposed by the
bulldozers, however, revealed traces of eleven burials
with deposition in storage jars (10) or an architectural
ossuary (1), and a complete skeleton with the head
to the north. As for phase II, phase I is datable to the
sixth–seventh century AD.91
Ershov believes that the structure was intended
as a naus, but as Ershov has it, the ground plan for
phase III does not show an entrance, which is probably
the reason Pugachenkova assumed that the function
of the structure required it to be permanently closed
to prevent access.92 Another obscure element, the
purpose of which is as yet not clarified, is the plat-
87 Ershov 1959: 165–66.
88 Ershov 1959: 164, fig. 3.
89 Ershov 1959: 166.
90 Proposed by Ershov (1959: 178), the year 496 as the date
for Kavad’s I coin needs re-evaluation in light of recent
studies; see Schindel 2006: 684–85. In fact it was a silver
drachm countermarked by a Central Asian ruler; see Login-
ov and Nikitin 1993: 274–75.
91 Ershov 1959: 176–78, 180.
92 Pugachenkova 1967: 88.
form-like structure in the north-western corner of the
courtyard. Although the excavator did not provide any
meaningful details, we think that the fact that it was
constructed using bricks of a different size from those
of phase III but corresponding to those of phase II,
proves that it was installed after the phase III structure
had been completed. What might perhaps throw some
light on the function of the building are remnants of a
clay pipe with a diameter of 10 cm and a length of at
least 4.60 m identified in the floor of the room imme-
diately west of the platform. Since the room has not
been entirely explored, neither the total length of the
pipe nor its outlet features can be reconstructed. With
these uncertainties, it is difficult to determine an exact
function for the pipe, but relying on Avesta pointing
to the necessity of taking water out of places where
corpses are exposed, Ershov speculates that the pipe
might have been part of a drainage installation.93 In this
case, perhaps for draining body fluids, provided that
the platform served for exposure (which is likely as
a similar solution was employed for one of the rooms
in the circular building at Bandiyan, in north-eastern
Iran94), and rainwater from the roofless courtyard. In
fact, Vendidad does address the issue of rain that is
sent by Ahura Mazda to locations where corpses are
placed and describes how such defiled water is subse-
quently purified95. It also implies, however, that rain
is beyond humans’ control and is controlled by Ahura
Mazda and, therefore, purification of rainwater is also
controlled by Ahura Mazda. Nevertheless, the location
of the pipe in the immediate vicinity of the platform
may argue for the former having been primarily con-
nected with the platform rather than with the entire
building. If so, the platform might have served as a
dakhma. The size of the platform (4 × 5 m) is suffi-
cient to accommodate a corpse for exposure. Ershov
does not report any bones near the platform nor does
he specify the height of the platform. The proposal to
see the building as combining the functions of a naus
and a dakhma has already been advanced by Grenet,96
although Grenet relies solely on the fact that the
building accommodated corpses not subjected to prior
exposure (five corpses in phase III, and twenty corpses
in Phase II).
The presence of both firebrick-lined graves (17) of
93 Ershov 1959: 169.
94 Rahbar 2007.
95 Vendidad 5.16–5.1, see Darmesteter 19: 95.
96 Grenet 1984: 192.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
phase III and the clay cylinders of phases II and III
(total 52) also poses a problem. Both types of depo-
sition differ from the Zoroastrian practice of placing
bones in ossuaries or jars. As far as clay cylinders are
concerned, their length varies from 60 to 90 cm, with
a diameter of 32 to 40 cm. No principle governing
the use or distribution of clay cylinders is discerni-
ble, although the excavator claims that larger sizes
are attributable to phase III. Open ends of cylinders
were covered with bowls or firebricks. Regrettably, in
contrast to ossuaries, jars, and graves, the excavator
does not pay any closer attention to the contents of the
cylinders.97 Moreover, Ershov is somehow inconsist-
ent in his report as he tends to use the term “cylindrical
ossuaries” interchangeably with “cylindrical coffins”
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
when referring to the cylinders, thereby preventing the
attribution of cylinder burials to either Zoroastrian or
non-Zoroastrian tradition.98
For Ershov, all burial types at site no 1, except the
placement of bones in ossuaries or ossuary jars, should
be qualified as a deviation from Zoroastrianism result-
ing from the adoption of the Mazdakean heresy.99 For
Masson, non-ossuary burials reflect Christian prac-
tices.100 Dresvyanskaya claims that all burial types,
including ossuary burials, might be Christian,101 while
Koshelenko and Desjatchikov link non-ossuary buri-
als to the presence of non-orthodox Zoroastrianism at
Merv.102 None of these views seems tenable. First, there
is no evidence that burial customs of Mazdak’s fol-
lowers differed in any way from those of Zoroastrians.
Secondly, Christians were present at Merv both before
and after the fifth century AD; therefore, if Christians
had shared their funeral buildings with Zoroastrians,
firebrick-lined graves would have been present in
all phases of the Merv necropolis. Lastly, there is no
reason to believe that Zoroastrian non-orthodoxy was
somehow specific to Merv of the fifth century AD.
Therefore the explanation proposed by Grenet seems
the most likely as it links the firebrick-lined graves
to newcomers appearing in the Merv oasis.103 Unlike
ossuaries or ossuary jars that were placed near walls in
97 Similar burial types are known from site no. 2; the report
is clear, however, that the cylinders held complete bodies
datable to the Islamic period; Obel’chenko 90: 100.
98 Ershov 1959: 164, illus. 3, 174, 191, pl. 12.
99 Ershov 1959: 180.
100 Masson 1969: 9.
101 Dresvyanskaya 1989.
102 Koshelenko and Desjatchikov 1966: 181.
103 Grenet 1984: 216.
57
the rooms, the firebrick-lined graves were set on the
floor, frequently in the centre of the rooms, usually
closer to, or even at, the entrances, which may suggest
that they belong to the last occupation sub-phase of
the phase III building. What is also puzzling about
the phase III building is that it was abandoned even
though its burial potential was not fully exploited:
from among twenty-four rooms, only nos. 16 and 17
were actually full, while other rooms where partly
filled, with several having just one to four burials.
There is nothing to indicate any sudden shift in burial
practices, which would have required or imposed a
change of the deposition place (i.e. abandonment of
the funerary building) as the location continued to
be used for burial purposes in two subsequent phas-
es (II and I). Ershov does not report any evidence
of sudden destruction or anything that would have
otherwise prevented further use of the building. The
question thus arises, did the premature abandonment
have anything to do with the occurrence of the fire-
brick-lined graves, given their specific location within
rooms and non-correspondence with the Zoroastrian
doctrine? Although there are examples to prove that
the observance of Zoroastrian burial practices does not
determine religious affiliations in any way (ossuaries
with a depiction of a cross, from Transoxiana and
Semirechiye104) and interment without prior decompo-
sition does not automatically preclude the possibility
of being a Zoroastrian,105 it is still puzzling that the
firebrick-lined graves are absent in phases II and I.
There are also questions concerning the firebrick-lined
graves: might they be linked to the weakened position
of Zoroastrianism and the short-term presence of other
religious groups that did not hesitate to bury their dead
members among ossuaries or partially decomposed
bodies?; and did the Zoroastrians perhaps tighten their
requirements connected with funerary rituals in the
period corresponding to phase II? Affirmative answers
to both these questions might explain why the phase
III building was abandoned. Constructed in the same
location in phase II, the new funerary structure has
the same orientation and size, if not the ground plan
104 Grenet 1984: 265.
105 Examining the Vendidad (Vd. 3.36–42), Grenet pays at-
tention to the fact that, unlike cremation, which involves
defilement by fire, the sin of burial was not punishable by
death but with corporal punishment; although remission
of the sin was not possible in theory, it could still be ab-
solved after two years if it was committed on bad advice
and repented.
 58 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
of the old building. It stands on an artificial mound
with the remnants of the old building at the base so
that earlier burials were separated from those intended
for the new building with a layer almost 1 m thick.
Clearly, the idea of the burial place and the funerary
building continued unaffected, but the need arose to
isolate earlier burials.
Datable to the fifth century, the use of fire-
brick-lined graves at site no. 2 corresponds to phase III
at site no. 1. As the firebrick-lined graves discontinue
in the immediately following phases at both sites, they
appear to be a short-term development. What imme-
diately comes to mind when we think of any equally
short-lived event on a broader plane is the political
situation in the Merv oasis in the fifth and the first half
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
of the sixth century with weakening or even temporary
loss of control of Khorasan during the reign of Yazde-
gerd II,106and with the Hephthalites controlling Kho-
rasan between the death of Peroz and the 24th year of
Kavad.107 The decline of Sasanian power and the pres-
ence of newcomers might have weakened the position
of Zoroastrian religion at Merv. Our hypothesis that
the very last sub-phase of the phase III building might
have coincided with the Sasanians losing control over
Merv and the entire Khorasan to the Hephthalites,
is strengthened by the fact that, among numerous
coins found in the ruined building of phase III, there
was a silver drachm of Kavad I countermarked in
Tokharestan with the name or title of a Central Asian
ruler.108 Notwithstanding the fact that the brick-lined
graves may have contained bodies of “newcomers”—
Christians or others—it seems reasonable to assume
that the necropolis, including the funerary structure at
site no.1, was Zoroastrian,109 except for a short period
of the Hephthalite domination over Margiana, preced-
ed by a deep crisis of Sasanian rule in the east.
To recapitulate, all buildings discussed above
differ from each other in terms of their architectural
design. Such a variety may prove that there was no
single specific architectural form dedicated to funer-
ary purposes, and although poor preservation of the
structures and deficiencies in the relevant excavation
reports hinder the precise determination of the original
106 Zeimal 1996: 246; Loginov and Nikitin 1993: 273;
Smirnova 2007: 387.
107 Callieri 1996: 397; Vaissière 2005: 232.
108 Loginov and Nikitin 1993: 274–75.
109 Contra Dresvyanskaya 1989; Grenet and Khasanov 2009:
71.
function of particular structures, at least two of them
(sites nos. 1 and 2) may be relatively safely consid-
ered as combining the function of a kata—a place for
temporary storage of corpses—a dakhma, and a naus.
Typically, the Zoroastrian population of Merv did
not deposit the bodies of their dead only at specifically
designated or dedicated burial places such as the ne-
cropolis above. The Turkmen-British archaeological
expedition working at Merv between 1992 and 2000
identified disarticulated human bones in three different
parts of the city, including an unused interior gallery
in the south-western corner bastion of the city.110 The
custom itself of reusing abandoned structures for funer-
ary purposes is also attested outside the Merv oasis, for
example in Göbekli Depe, where disconnected human
bones and skulls have been found deposited in one of
the ruined chambers of the early Sasanian fortress.111
Furthermore, the Zoroastrian funeral practices in
the Merv oasis are attested not only at Merv itself and
appear to have been widely applied in the entire area.
Munon Depe, some 35 km north-west of the town of
Bayram-Ali, is a very good example, yielding ossuary
jars containing human remains, several small concen-
trations of bones covered with cups, and fragments
of an ossuary decorated in relief.112 The first-century
date suggested by the Munon Depe excavators for
all the items discovered at the site, including ossuary
fragments is doubtful, however, as ossuaries from
the Merv necropolis are usually datable to the fifth
century. Nevertheless, the finds are meaningful in-
cluding, specifically, the decorated ossuary, which is a
valuable source of information about funerary rituals
of the Parthian and Sasanian Merv oasis. Relying on
ethnographic parallels, Koshelenko and Orazov con-
sider three women represented on the ossuary (Fig.
6) as being involved in a funeral dance.113 Such in-
terpretation is not unlikely, given the evening funeral
banquets with “singing, dancing, jesting, story-telling,
and the drinking of toasts” observed among modern
Zoroastrians by Boyce,114 as well as funeral scenes
identified on the so-called Painted Vase of Merv found
in the ruined Buddhist complex in the south-east corner
of Gyaur Kala. The Painted Vase shows, among others,
two females extending hands towards the head of a dead
110 Simpson and Molleson 2014; 84–86.
111 Gubaev et al. 1990: 58; Simpson and Molleson 2014: 11.
112 Koshelenko and Orazov 1965.
113 Koshelenko and Orazov 1965: 50–51.
114 Boyce 1989: 160–61.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S 59

Fig. 6. A fragment of clay ossuary from Munon Tepe (The

National Museum of History, Ashkhabad).
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017

male (Fig. 7).115 The depiction is usually construed as

demonstrations of mourning prohibited in Zoroastrian-
ism.116 As the females do not appear be making any
sudden or excessive movements, however, the scene is
more likely to be a final farewell to the dead, compa-
rable to the custom of Parses when one of two persons
sitting beside the deceased recites an Ashem Vohu very
close to the dead person’s ear.117 Moreover, given that
all significant actions are performed by individuals in
pairs during modern Zoroastrian funeral ceremonies,
the scene depicting two females on the Painted Vase of
Merv appears to prove the antiquity of this practice, as Fig. 7. The “Merv Vase” found in the Buddhist monastery
does the scene on the Munon Depe ossuary. in the south-east corner of Gyaur Kala (The National
All things considered, the archaeological sources Museum of History, Ashkhabad).
referred to above indicate that the funerary ritual, which
complies with Zoroastrian requirements, was known
and, more importantly, prevailed at Merv and its oasis Arsacid empire.119 Given the role of Merv on trade
at least from the first or second century AD, surviving routes, merchants travelling from the Mediterranean
at least until the end of the Sasanian period.118 to China might actually have been the earliest follow-
ers of Christ coming to Merv. Yet the tradition links
the beginnings of the Eastern Church with missionary
Christianity activity. Regrettably, the available sources are far
from providing a clear picture. In his On the Apos-
The beginnings of Christianity in the Merv oasis are tles and Disciples, Hippolytus of Rome writes that
difficult to trace, as they are anywhere else in the “Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians,
Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians…”.120 Thomas’s
115 Koshelenko 1966c: 92–105; Manassero 2003. mission in the Iranian world, including Margiana, is
116 Rose 2010: 144; Compareti 2011: 33. This interpretation also mentioned by the Armenian Synaxarium121 and
of the scene led Mode (2009) to identify the Vase as Sog-
Sophronius the Greek, but both most probably made a
dian work.
117 Modi 1928. spelling error by referring to Magians instead of Mar-
118 The Zoroastrians continued in power until at least the end
of the eighth century: the Zoroastrian adherent, Bahramis, 119 Winkler 2003: 7–8.
was a governor or marzban of Merv under Yazid II in 723; 120 Medlycott 1905: 151.
see Khanbaghi 2006: 19. 121 Bayan 1910: 421.
 60 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
gians.122 Later authors, however, are more focused on
the activity and death of St Thomas in India.123
Yet another, although somewhat ambiguous,
mention of the early presence of the Christian com-
munity at Merv comes from Biruni, who claimed that
the missionary Barshabba arrived at Merv as early as
“about two hundred years after Christ”.124 Although
Biruni does indeed mention the Christian festival in
the month of Haziran, commemorating the mission-
ary Barshabba, the early date is hardly reliable as
Biruni was mostly active in the eleventh century and,
therefore, the timescale of “about two hundred years”
might indicate that he did not have access to precise
evidence. The legend of the missionary Barshabba,
however, also survived in the Arabic Chronicle of
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
Seʿert, the fourteenth-century manuscript of which is
an original copy of a work written in the first half of
the tenth century.125 Although relatively late, informa-
tion contained in the Chronicle is essential inasmuch
as it sheds some light on the situation of Christians at
Merv and provides some further insight on the time
when Barshabba was active. The Chronicle says that
Barshabba, who later became bishop of Merv, was one
of those deported from Syria to Iran by King Shapur,
son of Ardashir. Having restored Shirran, the sister and
wife of Shapur, to health, Barshabba won Shapur’s
favour. Barshabba taught Shirran about his faith and
showed the horrors of the religion of the Magi effec-
tively enough for Shirran to convert to Christianity.
While the Magi were surprised by Barshabba’s action,
Shapur was furious, sent Shirran as far away as possi-
ble, and made her marry the governor of Merv. At Merv
not only did Shirran continue in her new faith, but she
also actively spread the Christian doctrine. Christiani-
ty gained popularity among descendants of Alexander
the Great’s Greek warriors who decided to abandon
their faith and destroy the idols they worshipped. The
Chronicle mentions that Shirran ordered a church to
be built. As she did not know what the architectural
design of the church should be, she modelled it after a
Persian royal palace and named it Ctesiphon. Barshab-
ba arrived at Merv with many priests, deacons, and
books, being welcomed by the residents of Merv. He
built an altar, healed and baptised people (including
many Magi), built many churches, and secured their
122 Medlycott 1905: 145.
123 Farquhar 1926.
124 Messina 1951.
125 Scher 1907: 253–58.
assets. He preached the new faith everywhere in Kho-
rasan and became the first bishop of Merv, while his
disciples dispersed in every city of Khorasan to build
churches and to baptise.126
Some fragments of the legend of Barshabba are
also known from documents found near the Chinese
city of Turfan. One of them, the “Barshabba Frag-
ment”, is a Sogdian version of a Syriac text, the ab-
breviated version of which was translated into Arabic
as Ta’rikh al-Siʽird (Chronicle of Seʿert). The Sogdian
text credits Barshabba with setting up churches in an
area stretching from Fars to Gorgan, Khorasan (Tus,
Abarshahr, Serakhs, Marv al-Rud, Balk, Herat), and
Sistan.127According to the Chronicle of Seʿert, Bar-
shabba was deported to Ctesiphon by Shapur, son
of Ardashir,128 and began his activity at Merv after
the peace treaty was signed between Shapur and the
Roman emperor Jovian. The main issue, however, is
not when exactly Barshabba was active but whether
sources containing references to Barshabba are actu-
ally historical. Sims-Williams points out that a bishop
of Merv with this name is not attested until AD 424;
it is, therefore, not unlikely that the descriptions of
Barshabba’s activity in the Chronicle and Turfan
documents lack any historical basis and are nothing
but a legend around the name of the bishop, written
solely to add some significance to the local Christian
community.129
Among texts that contain references to the early
presence of Christians at Merv, there is a disputable
fragment allegedly proving the existence of a met-
ropolitan diocese at Merv as early as the activity of
patriarch Papa bar Aggai who aimed at consolidating
all the churches in Persian territory under his rule. The
fragment comes from the Chronicle of Elie Bar-Si-
naya who was the metropolitan in Nisibis in the early
eleventh century.130 Relying on the Chronicle, some
scholars believe that Merv was already the seat of a
126 Messina 1952; Sims-Williams 1988; Brock 1995.
127 Sims-Williams 1988.
128 This information persuaded some scholars that Barshabba
was active during the reign of Shapur I (Messina 1951,
1952; Bader et al. 1996: 87; Koshelenko 1995b: 69), i.e.
much earlier than the second half of the fourth century or
reign of Shapur II, which is usually assumed for Barshab-
ba (Fiey 1973: 75–104; Sims-Williams 1988; Brock 1995;
Nikitin 2015).
129 Sims-Williams 1988.
130 Koshelenko et al. 1994: 76; Delaporte 1910: 50.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
bishop in 334.131 A somewhat later work, however,
Canon XXI of the Synod of Isaac (410), which provided
that “the bishops of the more remote dioceses of Fars,
of the Islands, of Beth Madaye, of Beth Raziqaye and
of the country of Abrashahr must accept the definition
established in this council at a later date”,132 does not
mention Merv directly. Nevertheless, the Christian
community at Merv must already have been powerful,
as the bishop of Merv—Barshabba—took part in the
Synod of Dadisho in 424 when the Eastern Church
claimed its autocephaly and autonomy.133 Since then,
representatives of the Christian community of Merv
took part in all the important events associated with
the activity of the Eastern Church. Bishops of Merv or
their representatives participated in all synods, except
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
that in 576, sometimes seeming actively to support
the appointment of a patriarch.134 The synod convened
either in December 543 or January 544 by Mar Aba
raised the Diocese of Merv to a Metropolis.135 Contacts
with the head of the Eastern Church with its seat in the
Sasanian capital city of Seleucia-Ctesiphon—which
would otherwise have been difficult had they not
been supported by Sasanian royal efforts initiated by
Yazdegerd I seeking to integrate Christians into impe-
rial politics136—were actually promoted by the specific
location of Merv on the Silk Route. Good examples to
illustrate relationships between the church at Merv and
the monarch are coins of Yazdegerd I struck at Merv,
depicting a cross with diadem ribbons instead of a fire
altar on the reverse.137 The last dramatic act of collab-
oration between the Christian community at Merv and
the monarchy was the involvement of the bishop of
Merv in the burial procedure for Yazdegerd III.138
The growing popularity of monastic life in the
western parts of the empire brought monasteries to
the Merv oasis. The Book of Chastity, a monastic
chronicle written in c. AD 900 by Ishodenah, bishop
of Basra, records information about Mar George, dis-
ciple of Mar Abraham (AD 491/492 or 501–586) who
is considered to be both an initiator of the monastic
131 Barthold 1901: 14–16; Vine 1937: 56–57; Buck 1999: 71.
132 Chabot 1902: 273.
133 According to Winkler (2003: 19), Merv had a diocese
since the second half of the fourth century.
134 Fiey 1973: 80; Winkler 2003: 32–33.
135 For the list of bishops and metropolitans of Merv, see Fiey
1993: 110–111.
136 Herman 2012: 50–51.
137 Loginov and Nikitin 1993: 271–72.
138 Tabari I: 2874, 2881.
61
Fig. 8. Plans of Kharoba-Koshk: (a) adapted from
Pugachenkova 1958: 128: (b) adapted from Dresvjanskaja
1968: 28.
way of life and “the father of monks” of the Eastern
Church.139 Being of Persian origin, Mar George is
believed to have settled at Zarak, in the Merv region,
where he founded a school and a monastery, which
later became his resting place. The Book of Chastity
also mentions another disciple of Mar Abraham, Mar
David Bar-Noutara of Merv, who founded a monastery
in the vicinity of Merv, where he was buried.140
What is significant is that all records referenced
above are of Christian monasteries or schools within
the Merv oasis but outside the city limits of Merv. And
it is outside the city of Merv, approximately 15 km
north of the mediaeval city of Sultan Kala, where a
structure called Kharoba-Koshk, which is common-
ly considered by scholars to be a Christian church,
was unearthed. The structure was first documented
by Pugachenkova.141 Her ground plan shows a sin-
gle-nave elongated building, with the inner faces of
side walls articulated with five pilasters on either side
(Fig. 8). Moreover, at the eastern end of the building,
the plan shows two niches on either side of a longi-
tudinal axis and a semi-circular apse set into the east
wall. In the mid-1960s, the site was excavated and yet
another ground plan was drawn, which significantly
differed from the first one in terms not only of the in-
ternal layout of the building (ten deep niches along an
internal corridor aligned with the axis of the structure,
and a rectangular apse) but also of the building dimen-
sions—41 × 11.4 m (Pugachenkova: 51 × 13 m).142
139 Jullien 2006: 154.
140 Chabot 1896: 9, 21, 41; Koshelenko et al. 1994: 73–75.
141 Pugachenkova 1958: 126–30.
142 Dresvyanskaya 1968: 28.
 62 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
Fig. 9. Kharoba-Koshk (adapted from Rossi Osmida 2011:
fig. 11).
The hypothesis that the structure had served reli-
gious purposes was first advanced by Pugachenkova
based on the ground plan of Kharoba-Koshk, which
she believed to have parallels in early church archi-
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
tecture of Asia Minor including, specifically, Ephesus.
Pugachenkova assumed that the structure, which she
dated to between the fifth and sixth centuries AD,
initially had been a Christian church that, in the Is-
lamic period, had undergone numerous modifications
followed by changes in its function.143 Other Russian
scholars claim that parallels for the ground plan
of Kharoba-Koshk can be found in eastern Syrian
churches and, therefore, the sacral function of the
structure is well established.144 This opinion is also
shared by Chmel’nickij who reconstructed the ground
plan of Kharoba-Koshk with a semi-circular apse, dat-
ing it to the fifth and sixth centuries AD.145 Puschingg
draws attention to the fact that there is no existing
architectural evidence that supports Pugachenkova’s
function-related hypothesis, and that the archaeo-
logical material Pugachenkova relied on (large and
almost square bricks measuring 40–41 × 40–41 × 11
cm in addition to rectangular ones measuring 29 × 29
× 6 cm) while establishing the Sasanian date of the
structure, was most likely material for brick making.146
Moreover, the same brick sizes were also used for the
nearby structure of Suli-Koshk. No other structure
apart from Kharoba-Koshk and Suli-Koshk uses these
two different brick sizes, and this specific combination
is most likely to reflect the local building tradition. As
Suli-Koshk is datable between the eleventh and twelfth
century AD, the same date should apply to Kharo-
ba-Koshk, according to Puschingg, who maintains
that the matter of determining the primary function of
143 Pugachenkova 1958: 129.
144 Bader et al. 1996: 89.
145 Chmel’nickij 1989: 171–72 and fig. 114.
146 Puschingg 1999: 180–81.
the structure has to remain open. Pugachenkova, how-
ever, suggested two occupational phases for Kharo-
ba-Koshk, with the square bricks and rectangular
bricks corresponding to the Sasanian phase and early
Islamic phase, respectively.147 The two occupational
phases were in any case confirmed during the most
recent conservation work on the structure, as was the
Christian temple function of Kharoba-Koshk, chiefly
because of a Seljuk-period Nestorian cross found
at the entrance to the structure. According to Rossi
Osmida, the structure was originally 55 m long and
consisted of two parts, each built at different times in
the Sasanian period (Fig. 9).148 The earlier eastern part
of the building with an external width of c. 13 m was
much longer (34 m) than the later western part (21 m)
with varying widths. The eastern part was separated
from the western one by large protrusions (undetected
by both Pugachenkova and Dresvyanskaya), with an
underground crypt on the southern side. The western
part was set on a platform of brick and hardened
clay; the foundation walls of the eastern part were
approximately 1.5 m below the foundation walls of
the western part. In the Seljuk period, the eastern part
was reinforced with an external firebrick shell; some
modifications, including blocking doorways, were
also made to the better preserved southern facade
which had at least six window openings and seven
doorways. In addition to the underground crypt and
pointed arched windows, the reconstruction proposed
by Rossi Osmida incorporates such other solutions
unusual for Sasanian architecture, such as pointed
arched doorways 3.30 m high. What is noteworthy is
that the elongated plan of Kharoba-Koshk resembles
that of the central aisle of church A in al-Qusayr near
al-Ukhaidir, Iraq.149 During conservation work on
Kharoba-Koshk, some additional structures were de-
tected near the main building, such as a brick and clay
platform-like feature.150 It is, therefore, reasonable to
assume that Kharoba-Koshk was actually much more
complex than it appeared from the reconstruction. Re-
grettably, no in-depth fieldwork has been undertaken
inside or outside Kharoba-Koshk.
Another structure that is often cited in the context
of Christianity at Merv is the Oval Building in the
147 Pugachenkova 1958: 127.
148 Rossi Osmida 2011.
149 Finster and Schmidt 1976: figs. 6–7; Hauser 2007: 99.
150 Rossi Osmida 2011: 155, fig. 10.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
north-eastern corner of Gyaur Kala.151 The structure
dates from the fifth–sixth century AD. It was an ir-
regular oval measuring 58 × 42 m.152 Located on the
south side of the structure, the entrance was accessed
by a ramp. Inside the structure, there were thirty-three
mostly rectangular rooms arranged around an internal
courtyard and attached to the enclosure wall. In the
last occupational phase of the structure, three elongat-
ed chambers were added in the southern corner of the
courtyard. The entire structure underwent several mod-
ifications. Based on the stone cylinder seal depicting a
cross and a fragmentary graffito showing a cross-like
object found within the Oval Building, the structure is
sometimes attributed to the Nestorians.153 Some schol-
ars say it was a Christian monastery,154 while others,
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
questioning such an interpretation, point to significant
discrepancies between the Oval Building and northern
Mesopotamian monasteries, as well as to the presence
of a series of narrow chambers that left no space for
rooms typical of monasteries, such as a chapel, dining
hall, or scriptorium.155 In addition, Comneno notes that
the ground plan of the Oval Building has no parallels in
Central Asian architecture although it does show some
similarity to the Buddhist monasteries of GandhMar
Abara.156 One more thing should be noted: the location
of a Christian monastery within the city is quite ex-
ceptional, given what is indicated in written sources.
The same tendency for a location outside cities can
also be seen for Buddhist stupas and monasteries: built
at a certain distance from inhabited areas, they ena-
bled communication with seculars, while providing a
certain degree of isolation to promote monastic life.157
Given this, therefore, and the fact that ostraca were
recovered from the Oval Building recording payment
transactions and agricultural products, it appears more
reasonable to view the Oval Building as a public
warehouse rather than a monastery.158 Nevertheless,
irrespective of the purpose of the Oval Building, the
strength of the Christian community at Merv and in its
vicinity is clear from a small yet significant number of
151 Dresvyanskaya 1974:155–81.
152 Chmel’nickij 1989: 174.
153 Chmel’nickij 1989: 175.
154 Pugachenkova 1967: 88–89; Dresvyanskaya 1974; Niki-
tin 1984: 123.
155 Bader et al. 1996: 89.
156 Comneno 1997: 30, no. 32.
157 Shimada 2012: 171–82.
158 Simpson 2008: 66.
63
archaeological finds relating to Christianity,159 quite a
few references in the writings of the Eastern Church,
as well as the position of Merv within the Christian
world after the Arab conquest.
Manichaeism
The beginnings of Manichaeism at Merv are insepara-
bly linked to the activity of Mani. A great step forward
for Mani was to convert Peroz, a brother of King
Shapur I. This probably took place at Merv where
Peroz and Mani met, as Manichaeism enjoyed many
adherents there.160 After his first audience with Shapur,
which was procured by Peroz, Mani sent his disciple
Mar Ammo, who was sufficiently fluent in the Parthian
language to establish it as the official language of the
eastern Manichaean Church.161 It is probable that Mani
then reappeared at Merv to support Mar Ammo.162
After the death of Mani, a Manichaean archegos
(probably Mar Sisin, Mani’s successor) arrived at Merv
where he saw that “all the brothers and sisters lived
in piety”. He sent one of them, Zurvandad, with two
sacred books written at Merv to Mar Ammō who was
preaching in the town of Zamb (Zamm on the Amu
Darya).163 Although written accounts mention Man-
ichaean activity at Merv until at least the end of the third
century AD, no reliable archaeological evidence has
yet been found to confirm the presence of Manichaeans
in the Merv oasis. Pugachenkova suggested that Key-
Marzuban—a Sasanian-period structure referred to by
early Muslim authors of the tenth and eleventh centu-
ries as a building housing a statue, with four sculpted
female and male figures serving as architectural
supports—might have been a Manichaean temple.164
Muslim authors, however, are excessively brief in their
descriptions and no trace of any such building has ever
been discovered to confirm its existence and reliably
159 Archaeologically, the presence of Christians at Merv itself
is barely confirmed, with the most prominent find being a
ceramic mould for casting small metal crosses (2.1 × 1.7
cm) from Erk Kala; see Herrmann et al. 1994: 68; Herr-
mann 1997: 14, and a small terracotta plaque decorated
with cross in pearl roundel, see Masson 1978: 51.
160 Henning 1936: 8–9.
161 Tardieu 2008: 23; Klimkeit 1982: 20; Asmussen 1989:
979.
162 Sundermann 1981: 124, 126.
163 Andreas and Henning 1977, I: 284–87; Lieu 1992: 109.
164 Pugachenkova 1958: 130–31.
 64 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
interpret its function. The fact that there is no evidence
to confirm the presence of Manichaeans from the fourth
century AD onwards165 is suggestive of a terminated
relationship with the head of the Manichaean Church at
Ctesiphon. It is also equally possible that persecutions,
which brought an end to Mar Sisin, combined with
the growing strength of Christians who often showed
hostility towards Manichaeans,166 might have forced
Manichaeans to leave Merv and flee further eastwards
to territories beyond Sasanian rule.167
Judaism
Although archaeological evidence is scarce, it is clear
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
that there was a Jewish population at Merv living next
to the Zoroastrian and Christian communities. Relying
on the Book of Esther (3:6, 8, 8:5, 12, 9:20), which
puts Jews in all provinces of the Persian empire, some
scholars suggest that the Achaemenid expansion marks
the beginning of the Jewish presence in Parthia.168 The
first reference to Jews living in Margiana comes from
the Babylonian Talmud which mentions the amora
(scholar) Samuel bar Bisna of the Pumpedita Tal-
mudic Academy, who visited Margiana in the fourth
century AD where he found Jewish merchants.169 The
merchants are reported to have welcomed him with
wine and beer, which he, however, refused to drink,
as he was afraid the wine and beer had been made by
infidels. Zand views the mention as proving that Jews
were present at Merv long enough to forget the Jewish
ritual governing the preparation of alcoholic beverag-
es.170 The mention also supports the hypothesis that the
presence of Jews in Iranian cities was associated with
their commercial activities along trade routes.171
The early presence of Jews at Merv is considered
to be confirmed by two Parthian inscriptions on
pottery vessels found at Erk-Kala, the citadel of the
ancient city of Merv. The first inscription, which dates
from the second–third century AD, reads “Property
of Pakur, son of Yosa”. Livshits and Usmanova find
“Yosa” to be a typical Jewish name.172 The only thing
165 Lieu 1985: 183; Gillman and Klimkeit 1999: 210.
166 Lieu 1992: 111–12.
167 Lieu 1992: 109.
168 Foltz 1998: 10; Zand 1990: 531.
169 Neusner 2007: 384.
170 Zand 1990: 531–32.
171 Har-El 1991: 8; Foltz 1999: 31; Pourshariati 2014.
172 Livshits and Usmanova 1994: 99–105.
that is reasonably certain is that “Yosa” is a Semitic
name that by no means determines the religious iden-
tity of its bearer, whether Jewish or Christian.173 What
was preserved from the second inscription, which is
datable to between the first and third centuries AD, is
the name “MYLK” which is also considered Semitic
by Livshits and Usmanova.
Four Hebrew names inscribed on ossuaries and
large vessels from the fifth to seventh century AD
from site no. 1 of the Merv necropolis provided
Grenet and Khasanov with grounds to suggest that the
entire funerary structure might have belonged to the
Jewish community.174 Nonetheless, if this suggestion
is accepted, it is difficult to explain why just four of
the 1096 vessels and ossuaries found at the site bear
an inscription identifying the deceased. Moreover, the
Hebrew name written on an ossuary can only mean
that a follower of Judaism adopted the use of ossu-
aries, which is not unlikely given that ossuary burial
practices were adopted by Christians in Central Asia175
as well as by the Jewish tradition itself. And although
ossuary burials were characteristic primarily of Jews
in Palestine between 30 BC and AD 70, some scholars
suggest that they might have continued even into the
third century AD.176 The Jewish practice of ossuary
burials involved the internment of the deceased in a
tomb, the subsequent collection of the bones of the
deceased after the flesh had desiccated, and the place-
ment in an ossuary for a secondary burial; corpses were
not exposed to birds or animals of prey as prescribed
by the Iranian tradition. Inscribing an ossuary with the
name of the deceased was a frequent practice among
Palestine Jews,177 while burial inscriptions on ossuar-
ies occur rarely among Zoroastrians and appear to be
limited to stone structures or rock niches and cavities,
such as those in the Iranian province of Fars.178
Notwithstanding the above, ossuary burials oc-
curred at Merv two centuries after secondary burials
in ossuaries had been abandoned by Jews. Although
it is not entirely unlikely that the Jewish community
living away from their homeland continued somewhat
longer with the ossuaries, it is equally likely that they
simply adopted Zoroastrian burial practices. If so, it
173 Contra Dresvyanskaya 2004: 21.
174 Grenet and Khasanov 2009: 71.
175 Grenet 1984: 141–46, 265.
176 Figueras 1983: 1; Shenkar 2014: 71, no. 54.
177 Figueras 1983: 12–18.
178 Gropp and Nadjamabadi 1970: 203–07; Gropp 1969.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S 65

would not be an isolated example of acculturation in

the Jewish community of the Sasanian period.179
Given the common belief among scholars that it
was from Merv that the Jews moved into Bactria, Sog-
diana, and Chorasmia, the scarcity of archaeological
traces of Jewish presence at Merv would be surprising
if it were not for the fact that the same scarcity can
also be observed for other regions of the Arsacid and
Sasanian empires, including Mesopotamia which,
however, offers a rich collection of written sources to
attest to a Jewish presence.180

Buddhism
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017

The earliest archaeological traces of Buddhist presence

in the Merv oasis most probably do not predate the
fifth or sixth century AD. Three Buddhist structures
have been identified in the oasis: a stupa datable to the
sixth–seventh century AD outside the eastern wall of
Gyaur Kala;181 a twelfth-century AD stupa identified
under one of the kolkhozes in the Merv oasis and not
investigated;182 and a stupa with a sangharama, or
monastery, in the south-eastern corner of Gyaur Kala
(Fig. 10), which is given various dates, ranging from
the first century BC to the late fifth–early sixth century
AD, with the later date being the most plausible.183
The latter complex is particularly noteworthy. Both
the stupa and sangharama were modified and reno-
vated multiple times. Initially, the stupa was a domed
structure placed on top of an elevated rectangular
brick socle (14 × 13 m) with a staircase on the north
side. After gaining its final shape, the stupa became
a cylinder (diam. c. 10 m) with a hemispherical top,
sitting on an elevated platform. The platform was ac-
cessed via a monumental stairway on the north side
and a ramp adjacent to the north-eastern corner of
179 Elman 2007.
180 Gafni 1995.
181 Rtveladze 1974: 231–33; Vorob’eva-Desjatovskaja 1988:
33; Callieri 1996.
182 Pugachenkova and Usmanova 1995: 51; Herrmann 1999:
163.
183 For the first century BC, see Koshelenko 1966b: 180–83;
for the first–second century AD, see Masson 1974: 13;
for the third–fourth century AD, see Stavisky 1990: 169;
1993–94: 163; Pugachenkova and Usmanova 1995: 56;
and for the late fifth or early sixth century claim based on
the reanalysis of objects deposited in the stupa, see Cal-
lieri 1996; Herrmann 1999: 163; Mkrtycev, 2002: 28–30.
Fig. 10. Buddhist stupa and associated monastery/sang-
harama (plan adapted from Pugachenkova and Usmanova
1995: figs. 4 and 7).
the complex. The stupa housed a square podium for a
reliquary. Taking the form of a miniature stupa (62 cm
in height), the reliquary contained small quantities of
ash. In the last occupational phase of the complex, the
reliquary was moved to a cache dug in the ground near
the stupa, where it was deposited together with clay
tablets showing religious scenes. Included within the
complex, the monastery in its final shape covered an
area of 140 m2 with thirty-two rooms arranged around
a courtyard. The monastery included several function-
al areas. Its western part was for sacral purposes and,
according to a reconstruction drawing presented by
Pugachenkova and Usmanova, its main element was
a square-domed chamber, or shrine, situated in the
southern part of the courtyard, on the axis of the main
entrance to the complex. The shrine is thought to have
housed a podium with a small stupa-like structure con-
taining a reliquary or a figurine. Utility rooms were lo-
cated south of the sacral premises, whereas rooms for
monks formed the eastern sector of the sangharama.
As far as the most plausible date for the complex
 66 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
is concerned, coins of Khosrow Anoshiravan found on
the platform seem to provide a terminus ante quem for
the use of the platform. Discontinuation of its use or
occupancy apparently corresponded with the abandon-
ment of the monastery and must have taken place in the
first half of the seventh century AD; this date is pro-
posed by Nikitin for the ostraca with Iranian theophoric
names left on the floor of the half-ruined monastery.184
Regrettably, all pottery evidence for both the stupa and
the monastery is published collectively with no clear
separation between excavation and residual contexts185
and with no information about the quantitative proper-
ties of the recovered material, which otherwise might
have been helpful in estimating the time of occupation
of the monastery. The fourth-century AD date proposed
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
by Pugachenkova and Usmanova for the construction
of the monastery and the stupa raises major doubts,
as the coins of Shapur II, which were found set into
the brickwork of the platform, can provide a terminus
post quem only for the construction of the stupa.186
Moreover, in neighbouring northern Bactria a Bud-
dhist complex at Airtam and two Buddhists temples at
Dal’verzin Tepe ceased to function in the third–fourth
century AD,187 and the Kara-tepe monastery at Old
Termez and the monastery at the closely adjoining site
of Fayaz-tepe were both abandoned in the fourth centu-
ry.188 The decline of the Bactrian Buddhist cult centres
is attributed to anti-Buddhist persecution intensified
by the Sasanian conquests in northern Bactria. Given
the situation in Bactria it is, therefore, rather unlikely
that any non-Zoroastrian centre such as a Buddhist one
might have existed at Merv in the fourth century: at that
time, Merv was the arena for religious persecution and
conflicts in the east and possibly a place where Shapur
II, and later probably also Bahram IV, stayed during
their eastern campaigns.189 Furthermore, fragments of
the clay head of a Buddha statue were found in the
ruined stupa at Gyaur Kala. As demonstrated by Cal-
lieri, the stylistic assessment and the size of the Buddha
head (c. 2.5–3.5 m) both suggest a date not earlier than
the sixth century AD (contrary to earlier proposals,
184 Nikitin 1992a: 95,101; 1992b: 114–24.
185 Pugachenkova and Usmanova 1995: figs. 11–12.
186 The same also applies to the bronze coins of Kavad I
found in the masonry of the stupa; see Pugachenkova and
Usmanova 1995: 60–61.
187 Pugachenkova 1991–2; Turgunov 1992; Rhie 2007: 197.
188 Rhie 2007: 191.
189 Schindel 2008: 250.
including the first half of the second century AD).190
In Callieri’s opinion, the same date can be given to the
sculptures found in the stupa outside the eastern wall of
Gyaur Kala.191 Thus, the Painted Vase of Merv, which
shares the archaeological context with the Buddha
head, should be also given a sixth-century date.192 Cal-
lieri links the construction of the Buddhist monuments
at Merv with the profound crisis of the Sasanian empire
between the second half of the fifth and the first half of
the sixth century, caused by the Hephthalites gaining
power.193 The domination of the Hephthalites with their
core territories of Tokharestan and north-west India
with Buddhism as a prevailing faith, facilitated the
infiltration of Buddhism to the Merv region. This does
not, of course, rule out the possibility that Buddhists
were actually present at Merv before the Hephthalite
occupation, but clearly they were too few and too weak
to build a Buddhist centre within the Zoroastrian city
at that time.
CONCLUSIONS
The amount of available evidence is certainly insuffi-
cient to reconstruct the political and religious history
of the ancient Merv oasis in any greater detail, but
even these scarce data, however, reveal links between
the religious situation in the oasis and the religious
setting of other parts of ancient Iranian empires. The
Parthian empire was much less centralised than that
of the Achaemenids or Sasanians; religious beliefs
in the remote Margiana appear to be similar to those
observed in central provinces, as is evidenced by the
personal names as well as the iconography of seal
impressions and terracotta figurines found in the
Merv oasis. Intensified in the early Parthian period,
the worship of Hellenistic gods was subsequently
abandoned, while Zoroastrianism continued to grow
in strength, especially under the Sasanians. Moreover,
the presence of other religions did not affect the shape
of Zoroastrian religious practices. This seems to be
well evidenced by funerary customs conforming to the
laws of Vendidad and further attested by Zoroastrian
decorative motifs present on such objects as the Paint-
ed Vase of Merv and the Munon Depe ossuary.
190 Callieri 1996: 397.
191 Callieri 1996: 395–97.
192 Puschingg 2006: 158–59; Herrmann et al. 1994: 32, 37.
193 Callieri 1996: 397–99.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
If we accept a late date for the construction of the
Buddhist monuments at Merv—late fifth–early sixth
century—it is plausible that a declining Sasanian
empire facing the Hephthalites resulted in a weakened
position for Zoroastrianism and, consequently, in both
the construction of non-Zoroastrian (Buddhist) reli-
gious structures in the city of Merv and the appearance
of alien non-Zoroastrian burials at the Merv necropo-
lis. It seems, however, that apart from the short period
of Hephthalite supremacy, Zoroastrianism retained its
dominant position at Merv and its region.
The remoteness from both the major imperial cen-
tres and the seat of the head of the Eastern Church at
Seleucia-Ctesiphon did not have a substantial impact
on the situation of the Christian community in Merv
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
either. Christian representatives maintained close con-
tact with their western counterparts, taking an active
part in synods, while new ideas and trends (e.g. mo-
nastic life revived by Mar Abraham) rapidly reached
Merv. Struck at Merv, coins of Yazdegerd I depicting
a cross with diadem ribbons instead of a fire altar on
the reverse, correspond well with the royal efforts to
unify all subjects within the empire and normalise re-
lations between the Sasanian monarchy and Christian
minorities, while indicating the position of the Chris-
tian community of Merv within the empire. Despite
this, it seems significant that the only structure so far
convincingly associated with Christians (Kharoba
Koshk) is located outside the city walls of Merv. Such
a specific location may be regarded as yet another
sign of keeping Zoroastrianism dominant. Zoroastrian
dominance certainly encouraged Jewish community
members to adopt Zoroastrian practices (ossuaries in-
scribed with Hebrew names) and Manichaeans to flee
from Merv in the late third century, following a new
wave of persecution after the demise of Mar Sisin.
Although scarce, the written and archaeological
evidence shows that changes in the religious landscape
of Merv resulted from the religious policies of the
monarchs and reflected the strength and power of the
empire especially during the Sasanian period. Despite
its location on the periphery of the ancient Iranian
empires, therefore, the Merv oasis cannot be deemed
peripheral, at least as far as its religious landscape is
concerned.
Barbara Kaim and Maja Kornacka
University of Warsaw
Institute of Archaeology
67
Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28,
00-927 Warsaw, Poland
barbara.kaim@uw.edu.pl
majakornacka@maya-artis.com
Bibliography
Abbrevations
AMI N.F. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran Neue Folge
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies
EIr Encyclopaedia Iranica
IA Iranica Antiqua
JA Journal Asiatique
Trudy YuTAKE Trudy Yuzhno-Turkmenistanskoy arkheo-
logicheskoy kompleksnoy ekspeditsii
VID Vestnik Drevniei Istoii
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländisschen Ge-
sellschaft
Alram, M. 1998. “Stand und Aufgaben der arsakidischen Nu-
mismatik”, in J. Wiesehöfer (ed.), Das Partherreich und
seine Zeugnisse. Beiträge des internationalen Colloquiums,
Eutin (27.–30. Juni 1996) = The Arsacid Empire. Sources
and documentation, Steiner, Stuttgart: 365–87.
Alram, M. and Pfisterer, M. 2010. “Alkhan Huns and Hephthal-
ite Coinage”, in M. Alram, D. Klimburg-Salter, M. Inaba and
M. Pfisterer (eds.), Coins, Art and Chronology II: The first
millenium CE in the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, Österreichis-
che Akademie der Wissenschaften 412, Verlag der Österre-
ichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna: 13–38.
Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae, translated by J. C. Rolfe,
London 1948.
Andreas, F.C. and Henning, W. 1934. “Mitteliranische Man-
ichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan III”, Sitzungberichte
der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philoso-
phisch-historische Klasse, Berlin: 848–912.
Asmussen, J.P. 1983. “Christians in Iran”, in E. Yarshater (ed.),
The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3/2, The Seleucid, Par-
thian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge: 924–48.
—1989. “Ammō, Mār”, EIr 1, fasc. 8: 979.
Bader, A.H., Gaibov, V. and Koshelenko, G. 1995. “Walls of
Margiana”, in A. Invernizzi, (ed.), In the Land of the Gryph-
ons. Papers on Central Asian archaeology in antiquity, Le
Lettre, Florence: 39–50.
Bader, A.H., Gaibov, V. and Koshelenko, G. 1996. “Mervskaja
mitropolija” [Merv metropolis], in D.E. Afinogenov and
A.V. Murav’ev (eds.), Tradicii i nasledie Christianskogo
Vostoka: materialy mezhdunarodnoj konferentsii, Indrik,
Moscow: 85–94.
Barthold, V.V. 1901. Zur Geschichte des Christenums in Mit-
tel-Asien bis zur mongolischen Eroberung, J.C.B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), Tübingen/Leipzig.
Bayan, G. 1910. Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israel,
Firmin-Didot, Paris.
 68 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
Benveniste, E. 1932. “Le Mémorial de Zarer”, JA 221: 245–93.
Bosworth, E. 1999. The history of al-Tabari, vol. 5. The Sasa-
nids, the Lakhmids, and Yemen, State University of New
York, New York.
Boyce, M. 1989. A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism, Clar-
endon Press, Oxford.
Brock, S. P. 1982. “Christians in the Sasanian Empire. A Case
of Divided Loyalties”, in S. Mews (ed.), Religion and Na-
tional Identity, Studies in Church History 18, Basil Black-
well, Oxford: 1–19.
—1995. “Bar Shabba/Mar Shabbay, First Bishop of Merv”, in
M. Tamcke, W. Schwaigert and E. Schlarb (eds.), Syrisches
Christentum weltweit. Festschrift Wolfgang Hage, Studien
zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 1, LIT Verlag, Mün-
ster: 190–201.
Brody, R. 1990. “Judaism in the Sasanian Empire: A Case
Study in Religious Coexistence”, in Sh. Shaked and A.
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
Netzer (eds.), Irano-Judaica II: Studies Relating to Jewish
Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages, Ben
Zvi Institute, Jerusalem: 52–62.
Brunner, Ch. 1983. “Geographical and Administrative Divi-
sions Settlements and Economy”, in E. Yarshater (ed.),
Cambridge History of Iran 3/2, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge: 747–78.
Brykina, G. A. (ed.) 1999. Srednyaya Azia i Dal’nij Vostok v
epokhu srednevekov’ya: Srednyaya Azia v rannem sred-
nevekov’e—Arkheologiya [Central Asia and the Far East in
the Middle Ages: Central Asia in the early Middle Ages—
Archeology], Nauka, Moscow.
Buck, Ch. 1999. Paradise and Paradigm: Key Symbols in Per-
sian Christianity and the Baha’i Faith, State University of
New York Press, Albany.
Callieri, P. 1996. “Hephthalites in Margiana? New Evidence
from the Buddhist Relics in Merv”, in La Persia e l’Asia
Centrale da Alessandro al X Secolo, Atti dei Convegni
Lincei 127, Rome: 391–400.
Carter, M.L. 1990. “Early Sasanian and Kushano-Sasanian
Coinage from Merv”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute (NS) 4:
11–16.
Chabot, J.B. (ed.) 1896. Le livre de la chasteté composé par
Jésusdenah, évêque de Baçrah, École française de Rome,
Rome.
—1902. Synodicon Orientale ou Recueil de synodes nestoriens.
Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nation-
ale et autres bibliothèques 37, Imprimerie Nationale, Paris.
Chmel’nickij, S. 1989. Zwischen Kuschanen und Arabern. Die
Architektur Mittelasiens im V.–VIII. Jh. Ein Rückblick in die
Kulturgeschichte der Sowjetunion, Hosemann & Goebel,
Berlin.
Christensen, A. 1944. L’Iran sous les Sassanides, E. Munks-
gaar, Copenhagen.
Cohen, G.W. 2013. The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from
Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India, Universi-
ty of California Press Ltd, London.
Comneno, M.A.L. 1997. “Nestorianism in Central Asia during
the First Millennium. Archaeological Evidence”, Journal of
the Assyrian Academic Society 11: 20–53.
Compareti, M. 2011. “The Painted Vase of Merv in the Context
of Central Asian Pre-Islamic Funerary Tradition”, The Silk
Road 9: 26–41.
Cribb, J. 2010. “The Kidarites, the numismatic evidence:
with an analytical appendix by A. Oddy”, in M. Alram, D.
Klimburg-Salter, M. Inaba and M. Pfisterer (eds.), Coins,
Art and Chronology II: The first millennium CE in the
Indo-Iranian borderlands, Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften 412, Verlag der Österreichischen Akade-
mie der Wissenschaften, Vienna: 91–146.
Darmesteter, J. 1965. The Zend Avesta, Pt. I. The Vendidad,
Motilal Banarsidass, Dehli.
de Jong, A.F. 2004. “Zoroastrian Religious Polemics and their
Contexts: Interconfessional Relations in the Sasanian
Empire”, in A. van der Kooij and T.L. Hettema (eds.),
Religious Polemics in Context, Papers presented to the
Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for
the Study of Religions (LISOR) held at Leiden, 27–28 April
2000, Koninklijke van Gorcum BV, Assen: 48–63.
—2015. “Religion and Politics in the Pre-Islamic Iran”, in A.
Strausberg and Y. Sohrab-Dinshaw Vevaina (eds.), The
Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism, J. Wiley &
Sons, Oxford: 85–102.
Delaporte, L.J. (ed.). 1910. La Chronograhie de Mar Elie Bar
Sinaya, Metropolitain de Nisibe, Bibliothèque de l’École
des Hautes Études, Paris.
Dresvyanskaya G.Ya.1968. “Istoria izuchenia khristianstva
v Sredney Azii” [History of the study of Christianity in
Central Asia], Trudy Tashkentskogo Gosudarstvennogo
Universiteta 333: 342–58.
—1974. “Oval’nyi dom khristianskoi obtshchiny v Starom
Merve” [The “Oval” Building of the Christian Community
at Ancient Merv], Trudy YuTAKE 15: 155–81.
—1989. “Nekropol’ Starogo Merva” [Necropolis of Ancient
Merv], Trudy YuTAKE 19: 157–62.
—2004. “K istorii iudaizma v Sredney Azii” [On the History
of Judaism in Central Asia], in E.V. Rtveladze (ed.), Evrei v
Sredney Azii: voprosy istorii i kul’tury, Fan, Tashkent: 20–25.
Eilers, W. 1983. “Iran and Mesopotamia”, in E. Yarshater (ed.),
The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 3/1, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge: 481–504.
Elman, Y. 2007. “Middle Persian culture and Babylonian sages:
Accommodation and Resistance in the Shaping of Rabbinic
Legal Tradition”, in Ch. Elisheva Fonrobert and M.S. Jaffee
(eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rab-
binic Literature, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge:
165–97.
Ershov, S.A. 1959. “Nekotorye itogi archeologicheskovo
izucheniya nekropola s ossuarnymi zakhoroneniami v
raione goroda Bairam-Ali” [Some results of archaeological
investigations of the ossuary necropolis in the region of
Bayram Ali town], in Trudy Instituta Istorii, Archeologii
i Etnografii Akademii Nauk Turkmenskoi SSR 5, Ylym,
Ashkhabad: 160–204.
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, in Eusebius. The History of
the Church, translated by G.A. Williamson. Penguin, Har-
mondsworth 1965.
Farquhar, J.N. 1926. “The Apostle Thomas in North India”,
John Rylands Library Bulletin 10: 80–111.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
Ferdowsi. The Shāh-nāma of Firdausi, vol. 7, translated by
A.G. Warner, Kegan Paul, London 1915.
Fiey, J.-M. 1973.“Chrétientés syriaques du Horāsān et du
Ségestān”, Le Muséon 86: 75–104.
—1979. Communautés syriaques en Iran et Irak des origines à
1552, Variorum Reprints, London.
—1993. Pour un Oriens Christianus Novus: Répertoire des
diocèses Syriaques orientaux et occidentaux, Franz Steiner
Verlag, Stuttgart.
Figueras, P. 1983. Decorated Jewish ossuaries, Brill, Leiden.
Filanovich, M.I. 1974. “Gyaur Kala”, Trudy YuTAKE 19: 15–139.
Finster, B. and Schmidt, J. 1976. “Sasanidische und frühisla-
mische Ruinen im Iraq”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 8: 7–169.
Foltz, R.C. 1998. “Judaism and the Silk Route”, The History
Teacher, 32/1: 9–16.
—1999. Religions of the Silk Road. Overland Trade and Cul-
ture Exchange from Antiquity to the Fifteenth Century, St.
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
Martin’s Griffin, New York.
Frye, R.N. 1984. The History of Ancient Iran, C.H. Beck, Mu-
nich.
Gafni, I. 1995. “Synagogues in Babylonia in the Talmudic
Period”, in D. Urman and P.V. McCracken Flesher (eds.),
Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeologi-
cal Discovery, Brill, Leiden: 221–31.
Gaibov, V. 2007. “The bullae of Gobekly-depe”, in J. Cribb and
G. Herrman (eds.), After Alexander: Central Asia before
Islam, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 285–94.
Gershevitch, I. 1967. The Avestan Hymn to Mithra, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Gignoux, Ph. 1991. Les quatre inscriptions du Mage Kirdīr.
Textes et concordances, (Collection des sources pour l’his-
toire de l’Asie Centrale pré-islamique II/I = Studia Iranica
9), Peeters. Leuven.
Gillman, I. and Klimkeit, H.J. 1999. Christians in Asia before
1500, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Grenet, F. 1984. Les pratiques funéraires dans l’Asie centrale
sédentaire de la conquête grecque à l’islamisation, Centre
National de Recherches Scientifiques, Paris.
—2002. “Regional interaction in Central Asia and North-
west India in the Kidarite and Hephtalite periods”, in N.
Sims-Williams (ed.), Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples,
Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York: 203–24.
—2005. “Kidarites”, EIr, online version: www.iranica.com,
accessed 21 June 2015.
Grenet, F. and Khasanov, M. 2009. “The Ossuary from San-
gyr-tepe (Southern Sogdiana): Evidence of the Chionite
Invasions”, Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 4:
69–81.
Gropp, G. 1969. “Einige neuentdeckte Inschriften aus sasan-
idischer Zeit”, in W. Hinz (ed.), Altiranische Funde und
Forschungen, De Gruyter, Berlin: 229–63.
Gropp, G. and Nadjamabadi, S. 1970. “Bericht über eine Reise
in West- und Südiran”, AMI N.F. 3: 173–230.
Gubaev, A., Koshelenko, G. and Novikov, S. 1990. “Archaeo-
logical exploration of the Merv Oasis”, Mesopotamia 25:
51–60.
Gyselen, R. 1995. Sceaux magiques en Iran sassanide, (Cahiers
de Studia Iranica 17), Peeters, Leuven.
69
Har-El, M. 1991. “Jews and the Great Silk Road”, Ariel: A
Review of Arts and Letters in Israel (Jerusalem) 84: 4–18.
Hauser, St. 2007. “Christliche Archäologie im Sassanidenreich:
Grundlagen der Interpretation und Bestandaufnahme der
Evidenz,” in M. Arafa et al. (eds.), Inkulturation des Chris-
tentums im Sasanidenreich, Reichert, Wiesbaden: 93–136.
Henning, W. 1936. “Materialien zur Geschichte des Manichais-
mus”, ZDMG 90: 1–180.
—1942. “Mani’s Last Journey”, BSOAS 10: 941–53.
—1957. “The Dates of Mani’s Life”, Asia Major N.S. 6/1:
106–21.
Herman, G. 2010. “Bury my Coffin Deep!’: Zoroastrian Ex-
humation in Jewish and Christian Sources” in J. Roth, M.
Schmeltzer and Y. Francus, Tiferet le Yisrael, Jubilee Vol-
ume in Honor of Israel Francus, The Jewish Theological
Seminary of American, New York: 31–59.
—2012. A Prince Without a Kingdom: The Exilarch in the Sasa-
nian Era, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism/Texte und
Studien zum Antiken Judentum, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.
Herrmann, G. 1997. “Early and Medieval Merv: A Tale of Three
Cities”, Proceedings of the British Academy 94: 1–43.
Herrmann, G. 1999: Monuments of Merv: Traditional Buildings
of the Karakum, Society of Antiquaries of London, London.
Herrmann, G., Kurbansakhatov, K. et al. 1994. “The Interna-
tional Merv Project. Preliminary Report on the Third Sea-
son (1994)”, Iran 33: 31–60.
Huyse, P. 1999. Die dreisprachige Inschrift Šābuhrs I. an der
Ka’ba-ǐ Zardušt (ŠKZ). Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum,
Part III, Pahlavi Texts I, SOAS, University of London,
London.
Isidore of Charaks Parthian Stations, by Isidore of Charax: an
account of the overland trade route between the Levant and
India in the first century BC, ed. and trans. W.H. Schoff,
Philadelphia 1914; repr. 1976 Ares Publishers, Chicago.
Jullien, C. 2006. “La minorité chrétienne ‘Grecque’ en terre de
l’Iran à l’époque Sassanide”, in R. Gyselen (ed.), Chrétiens
en terre d’Iran: Implantation et Acculturation, (Association
pour l’Avancement des Études iraniennes, Cahier de Studia
Iranica 33): 105–142.
Kaim, B. 2004. “Ancient fire temples in the light of the discov-
ery at Mele Hairam”, IA 39: 323–37.
Khanbaghi, A. 2006. The fire, the star and the cross. Minority
religions in Medieval and early Modern Iran, I.B. Tauris,
London/New York.
Klimkeit, H.-J. 1982. Manichean Art and Calligraphy (Iconog-
raphy of Religions 20), Brill, Leiden.
Koshelenko, G. 1966a. Kultura Parfii [Parthian Culture], Nau-
ka, Moscow.
—1966b. “The Beginning of Buddhism in Margiana”, Acta
Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 14: 175–83.
—1966c. “Unikal’naya vaza iz Merva” [A unique vase from
Merv], VDI 1: 92–105.
—1977. Rodina Parfyan [The homeland of the Parthians], Sov.
Khudozhnik, Moscow.
—(ed.) 1985. Drevneyshie gosudarstva Kavkaza i Sredney Azii
[Ancient states of Caucasus and Central Asia], Nauka,
Moscow.
—1995a. “Dve bogini?” [Two goddesses?], VDI: 194–203.
 70 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
—1995b. “The Beginnings of Christianity in Merv”, IA 30:
55–70.
—2001: “Bully iz raskopok Gebekly-Depe” [Bullae from the
excavations at Gobelky-depe], VDI 2: 71–78.
Koshelenko, G.A. and Desjatchikov, Y.M. 1966. “Raskopki
nekropolya drevnego Merva” [Excavations of the Merv
necropolis], Archeologicheskie Otkrytia 1965 goda:
179–81.
Koshelenko, G.A. and Orazov, O. 1965. “O pogrebal’nom
kul’te v Margiane v parfyanskoe vremya” [About funeral
cult in Margiana in Parthian times], VDI 4: 42–56.
Koshelenko, G.A., Gubaev, A., Bader, A. and Gaibov, V.A.
1994. Drevnyi Merv v svidetel’stvach pis’mennych istoch-
nikov: sbornik dokumentov [Ancient Merv in historical
traditions: collection of documents], Jurt, Ashkhabad.
Labourt, J. 1904. Le Christianisme dans l’Empire perse sous la
dynastie des Sassanides, 2nd edition, Lecoffre, Paris.
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
Le Strange, G. 1905. The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate,
Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York.
Lieu, S.N.C. 1985. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire
and Medieval China, A Historical Survey, Manchester Uni-
versity Press, Manchester.
—1992. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medie-
val China, Mohr, Tübingen.
Livshits, V.A. and Nikitin A.B. 1994. “Parthian and Middle
Persian Documents from South Turkmenistan. A Survey”,
Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 1/3: 312–23.
Livshits, V.A. and Usmanova Z.I. 1994. “New Parthian Inscrip-
tion from Old Merv”, in Irano-Judaica, III: Studies Relat-
ing to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout
the Ages, Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem: 99–105.
Loginov, S.D. and Nikitin, A.B. 1986. “Monety s vsadnikom iz
Merva” [Coins of the Merv horseman], Sovetskaya Arche-
ologiya 3: 243–49.
—1993. “Sasanian Coins of the Late 4–7th Centuries from
Merv”, Mesopotamia 28: 171–312.
—1996. “Parthian Coins from Margiana: Numismatics and
History”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 10: 39–51.
McDonough, S.J. 2006. “A Question of Faith? Persecution and
Political Centralization in the Sasanian Empire of Yazdgard
II (438–457 CE)”, in H.A. Drake (ed.), Violence in Late
Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices, MPG Books Ltd.,
Bodmin, Cornwall: 69–85.
—2011. “The Legs of the Throne: Kings, Elites, and Subjects
in Sasanian Iran”, in J.P. Arnason and K.A. Raaflaub (eds.),
The Roman Empire in Context: Historical and Comparative
Perspectives, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford: 290–321.
MacKenzie, D.N. 1989. “Kerdīr’s Inscription”, in G. Herr-
mann (ed.), The Sasanian Rock Reliefs at Naqsh-i Rustam.
Naqsh-i Rustam 6. The Triumph of Shapur I, Iranische
Denkmäler, D. Reimer, Berlin: 35–78.
Manassero, N. 2003. “Il vaso dipinto di Merv”, Parthica 5:
131–52.
Marquart, J. 1914. “Über das Volkstum der Komanen”, in W.
Bang and J. Marquart, Osttürkische Dialektstudien, Ab-
handlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaf-
ten zu Göttingen, N.S. 13/1, Dieterichsche Buchhandlung,
Berlin: 25–238.
Masson, M. E (1978): “Proiskhozhdeniye dvukh nestorianskikh
namoginykh galek Sredney Azii (About the origin of two
Nestorian grave stones in Central Asia)”. Obshchestvennyie
Nauki v Uzbekistane 10: 50–55.
Masson, V.M. 1969. “Ot redaktora” [Editorial introduction],
Trudy JuTAKE 14: 7–12.
—1974. “Ot redaktora” [Editorial introduction], Trudy JuTAKE
15: 9–14.
Medlycott, A.E. 1905. India and the Apostle Thomas: An In-
quiry, with a critical analysis of the Acta Thomae, David
Nutt, London (Reprinted 2013).
Messina, G. 1951. “Al-Biruni sugli inizi del christianesimo a
Merv”, in Al-Biruni Commemoration Volume, AH 362–AH
1362, Iran Society, Calcutta: 221–31.
—1952. “Al-Biruni and the Beginning of Christianity at Merv”,
Indo-Iranica 5/4: 49–56.
Metzler, D. 2012. “Aspekte religiöser Vielfalt im Partherreich”,
in P. Wick and M. Zehnder (eds.), The Parthian Empire
and its Religions. Studies in the Dynamics of Religious
Diversity; Das Partherreich und seine Religionen. Studien
zu Dynamiken religiöser Pluralität, Computus Druck satz
& Verlag, Gutenberg: 17–26.
Minorsky, V. 1947. “Vīs u Rāmīn: A Parthian Romance”,
BSOAS 12/1: 20–35.
Mkrtycev, K. 2002. Buddyiskoe iskusstvo Sredney Azii (I–X vv.)
[Buddhist art of Central Asia, 1st–10th centuries], Akadem-
kniga, Moscow.
Mode, M. 2009. “Sogdiana”, VI, “Sogdian Art”, EIr, online
version: www.iranica.com, accessed 21 June 2015.
Modi, J.J. 1905. “The Cities of Iran as described in the old
Pahlavi Treatise of Shatroiha-i-Airan”, Journal of the B. B.
Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XX: 156–90.
—1928. The Funeral Ceremonies of the Parsees, Anthropolog-
ical Society of Bombay, www.avesta.org/ritual/funeral.htm,
accessed 21 June 2015.
Neusner, J. 1966. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. Part 2.
The Early Sasanian Period, Brill, Leiden.
—1970. A History of the Jews in Babylonia. vol. V. Later Sasa-
nian Times, Brill, Leiden.
—2007. How the Halakah Unfolds, vol. 2, part B, University
Press of America, Lanham.
Nikitin, A.B. 1984. “Khristianstvo v Central’noi Azii. Drevnost’
i srednevekov’e” [Christianity in Central Asia. Antiquity
and Middle Ages], in B.A. Litvinskij (ed.), Vostochnyi
Turkestan i Sredniaia Azia. Istoria. Kultura. Sviazi [Eastern
Turkestan and Central Asia. History. Culture. Interrela-
tions], Nauka, Moscow: 121–37.
—1992a. “Srednepersidskie nadpisi iz buddiiskogo svyatilit-
shcha v Starom Merve” [Middle Persian ostraka from the
Buddhist sanctuary in Old Merv], VDI: 95–101.
—1992b. “Middle Persian Ostraca from South Turkmenistan”,
East and West 42/1: 103–29.
—1999. “Notes on the Chronology of the Kushano-Sasanian
Kingdom”, in M. Alram and D.E. Klimburg-Salter (eds.),
Coins, Art and Chronology: Essays on the Pre-Islamic
History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna.
 R E L I G I O U S L A N D S C A P E O F T H E A N C I E N T M E RV O A S I S
—2015. “On the history of the Christianity in Merv”, Problemy
Istorii, Philologii, Kultury 1: 164–69.
Nöldeke, T. 1879. Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit
der Sasaniden. Aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari,
Brill, Leiden (reprinted 1973).
Obel’chenko, O.V. 1969. “Nekropol’ drevnego Merva (materi-
aly raskopok 1955 g)” [Necropolis of Old Merv (excavation
materials 1955)], Trudy JuTAKE 14: 86–99.
Payne, R.E. 2015. A State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians,
and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity, University
of California Press, Oakland.
Pilipko, V. 1980. “Parfyanskie bronzovye monety so znakom
‘Π’ pod lukom” [Parthian bronze coins with the symbol ‘Π’
below a bow], VDI 4: 105–24.
Pliny. Natural History, Volume II: Books 3–7, translated by H.
Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 352,. Cambridge, MA,
Harvard University Press 1942.
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
Pourshariati, P. 2008. Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire:
The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Con-
quest of Iran, I.B. Tauris, London and New York.
Pourshariati, P. 2014. “New Vistas on the History of Iranian
Jewry in Late Antiquity, Part I: Patterns of Jewish Settle-
ment in Iran”, in H.M. Sarshar (ed.), The Jews of Iran:
The History, Religion and Culture of a Community in the
Islamic World, I.B. Tauris, New York: 1–32.
Pugachenkova, G.A. 1958. Puti razvitiya architektury juzhnogo
Turkmenistana pory rabovladeniya i feudalizma [The devel-
opment of architecture in southern Turkmenistan at the time
of slave-holding states and feudalism], Trudy JuTAKE 6.
—1963. “Mervskie gemmy-intalii” [Gems and intaglios of
Merv], Trudy JuTAKE 12: 201–12.
—1967. Iskusstvo Turkmenistana [Art of Turkmenistan], Isk-
ustvo, Moscow.
—1991–92. “The Buddhist Monuments of Airtam”, Silk Road
Art and Archaeology 2: 23–41.
Pugachenkova, G.A. and Usmanova, Z.I. 1994. “Buddijskii
kompleks v Giaur-kale Starogo Merva” [Buddhist complex
in Gyaur-Kala, Ancient Merv], VDI 1: 142–71.
Puschingg, G. 1999. “Kharoba Koshuk”, in G. Herrmann (ed.),
Monuments of Merv: Traditional Buildings of the Karakum,
Society of Antiquaries of London, London: 180–81.
—2006. Ceramics of the Merv Oasis: recycling the city, Left
Coast Press, London.
Rahbar, M. 2007. “A tower of silence of the Sasanian period
at Bandiyan: Some observations about dakhmas in Zoro-
astrian religion”, in J. Cribb and G. Herrman (eds.), After
Alexander: Central Asia before Islam, Oxford University
Press, Oxford: 455–73.
Rhie, M.M. 2007. Early Buddhist Art of China and Central
Asia, vol. 1, Brill, Leiden/Boston.
Rist, J. 1996. “Die Verfolgung der Christen im spätantiken
Sasanidenreich: Ursachen, Verlauf und Folgen”, Oriens
Christianus 80: 17–42.
Roques, P. 2013. L’aventure des Nestoriens, Éditions L’Har-
mattan, Paris.
Rose, J. 2010. Zoroastrianism. An Introduction, I.B. Taurus.
New York.
Rossi Osmida, G. 2011. “Interventions of Recovery and Res-
71
toration conducted at the site of Haroba Kosht, (Turkmeni-
stan)”, Parthica 13: 145–78.
Rtveladze, E.V. 1974. “Novyi buddijskii pamjatnik v Starom
Merve” [The new Buddhist Monument in ancient Merv],
Trudy YuTAKE 15: 231–35.
Scher, A. 1907. Histoire nestorienne inédite (Chronique de
Séert) I/1, (Patrologia Orientalis) 4, Firmin-Didot, Paris.
Schindel, N. 2004. Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum. Paris,
Berlin, Wien. III/1: Shapur II.–Kawad I./2. Regierung,
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Vienna.
—2005. “The Sasanian Coinage in Merw during the 5th centu-
ry AD”, in Simposio Simone Assemani sulla monetazione
Islamica, Esedra, Padua: 43–54.
—2006. “The Sasanian Eastern Wars in the 5th Century: The
Numismatic Evidence”, in A. Panaino and A. Piras (eds.),
Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Societas Irano-
logica Europaea, vol I. Ancient & Middle Iranian Studies,
Mimesis International, Milan: 675–89.
—2008. “Die Münzstätte Marw von Ardashir II. bis zur Mitte
des 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr.: Ein Nachtrag”, Numismatische
Zeitschrift 116/117: 249–51.
—2010. “The 3rd Century “Marw Shah” Bronze Coins Recon-
sidered”, in H. Börm and J. Wiesehöfer (eds.), Commutatio
et Contentio. Studies in the Late Roman, Sasanian and Early
Islamic Middle East, I. Wellem Verlag, Düsseldorf: 23–32.
—2012. “Kawād I, Coinage under reign of Kawād (5th cent.)”,
EIr 16, fasc. 2: 141–43.
Schmidt, C. and Polotsky, H.J. 1933. Ein Mani-Fund in
Ägypten: Originalschriften des Mani und seiner Schüler,
De Gruyter, Berlin.
Schwartz, M. 1996. “*Sasm, Sesen, St. Sisinnios, Sesengen
Barpharangēs, and … ‘Semanglof’”, Bulletin of the Asia
Institute 10: 253–57.
Senior, R.C. 2001. Indo-Scythian Coins and History, Classical
Numismatic Group, Lancaster, PA.
Shahbazi, A.Sh. 2005. “Sasanian dynasty”, EIr, online version:
www.iranica.com, accessed 5 June 2015.
Shaked, Sh. 1994. Dualism in Transformation. Varieties of
Religion in Sasanian Iran, Jordan Lectures in Comparative
Religion 16, University of London, London.
—2008. “Religion in the Late Sasanian Period: Eran, Aneran,
and Other Religious Designations”, in V. Sharkhosh Curtis
and S. Stewart (eds.), The Idea of Iran III. The Sasanian
Era, I.B. Tauris, London/New York: 103–17.
Shenkar, M. 2014. “Yosef bar El’asa Artaka and elusive Jewish
Diaspora of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia”, Journal of
Jewish Studies 65: 52–76.
Shimada, A. 2012. Early Buddhist Architecture in Context.
The Great Stūpa at Amarāvatī (c. 300 BCE–300 CE), Brill,
Leiden.
Simpson, St.J. 2008. “Suburb or slum? Excavations at Merv
(Turkmenistan) and observations on stratigraphy, refuse
and material culture in a Sasanian city”, in D. Kennet and
P. Luft, Current Research in Sasanian Archaeology, Art
and History. Proceedings of a Conference held at Durham
University, November 3rd and 4th, 2001, Archaeopress,
Oxford: 65–78.
 72 BARBARA KAIM AND MAJA KORNACKA
Simpson, St.J. and Molleson, T. 2014. “Old Bones Overturned.
New Evidence for Funerary Practices from the Sasanian
Empire”, in D. Antoine, A. Fletcher and J.D. Hill (eds.), Re-
garding the Dead: Human Remains in the British Museum,
British Museum Press, London: 77–90.
Sims-Williams, N. 1988. “Barshabba”, EIr 3, fasc. 8: 822.
—2008. “The Sasanians in the East. A Bactrian archive from
northern Afghanistan”, in V. Sarkhosh Curtis and S. Stewart
(eds.), The Idea of Iran III. The Sasanian Era, I.B. Tauris,
London/New York: 88–102.
Smirnova, N. 2007. “Some Questions Regarding the Numis-
matics of Pre-Islamic Merv”, in J. Cribb and G. Herrmann
(eds.), After Alexander. Central Asia before Islam, Oxford
University Press, Oxford: 377–88.
Strabo. The Geography, Books 10–12, translated by H. L. Jones,
Loeb Classical Library No. 211, London 1969.
Stavisky, B.J. 1990. “Buddhist Monuments of Central Asia and
Downloaded by [89.75.124.87] at 07:02 31 October 2017
the Sasanians, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 4: 167–170.
1993–94. “The fate of Buddhism in Central Asia in the light of
archaeology”, Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3: 113–42.
Sundermann, W. 1981. “Mitteliranische manichäische Texte
kirchengeschichtlichen Inhalts”, Berliner Turfantexte XI,
Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
Susenkova, R.S. 1969. “Domusul’manskij nekropol’ Starogo
Merva (po dannym raskopok 1956 g.)” [Pre-Islamic ne-
cropolis of Old Merv according to the results of the 1956
excavation], Trudy JuTAKE 14: 100–8.
Tabari. The History of al-Tabari. Vol. 9. The Conquest of Iran,
translated and annotated by G. Rex Smith, State University
of New York Press, New York 1994.
Tardieu, M. 2008. Manichaeism, University of Illinois Press,
Champaign.
Thomson, R.W. and Howard-Johnston, J. 1999. The Armenian
History attributed to Sebeos, Translated Texts for Histori-
ans 31, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool.
Tremblay, X. 2001. Pour une histoire de la Serinde. Le Man-
ichéisme parmi les peuples et religions d’Asie Centrale
d’après les sources primaires (Veröffentlichungen Zur
Iranistik), Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, Vienna.
—2006. “Ostiran vs Westiran: Ein oder zwei Iran vor der
islamischen Eroberung?”, in H. Eichner, B.G. Fragner, V.
Sadowski and R. Schmitt, Iranistic in Europa—gestern,
heute, morgen, Sitzungsberichte der Österreichische Akad-
emie der Wissenschaften 739, Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna: 217–39.
Turgunov, A. 1992. “Excavations of a Buddhist Temple at
Dal’verzin-tepe”, East and West 42/1: 131–53.
Utas, B. 1975. “On the Composition of the Ayyātkār ī Zarēran”,
AIr 5: 399–418.
Vaissière, É. de la. 2003. “Is There Any “Nationality of the
Hephtalites?”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute 17: 119–37.
—2005. Sogdian Traders. A History, Brill, Leiden/Boston.
Vine, A.R. 1937. The Nestorian Churches. A Concise History of
Nestorian Christianity in Asia from the Persian Schism to
the Modern Assyrians, Independent Press, London.
Vorob’eva-Desjatovskaja, M.I. 1988. “Rukopis’naya kniga v
kul’ture Indii” [Manuscript books in the culture of India], in
Yu.A. Pertosyan and M.I. Vorob’eva-Desjatovskaja (eds.),
Rukopisnaya kniga v kul’ture narodov Vostoka (ocherki) 2,
Nauka, Moscow: 7–80.
Vysockii, А.М. 1990. “Khristianskiy pamyatnik na poselenii
Duye-Chakyn okolo Merva: interpretatsiya, datirovka,
rekonstruktsiya” [A Christian monument in the settlement
Duje-Chakyn near Merv: interpretation, dating, reconstruc-
tion], in Kul’turnye svyazi narodov Sredney Azii i Kavkaza.
Drevnost’ i srednevekov’ye, Nauka, Мoscow: 90–100.
Walker, J.T. 2006. The Legend of Mar Qardagh: Narrative
and Christian Heroism in Late Antique Iraq, University of
California Press, London.
Wang, T. 2007. “Parthia in China: a re-examination of the
Historical Records”, in V. Sarkhosh Curtis and S. Stewart,
(eds.), The Age of the Parthians, I.B. Tauris: London/New
York: 87–104.
Winkler, D.W. 2003. “The age of the Sassanians: until 651”, in
W. Baum and D.W. Winkler, The Church of the East. A con-
cise history, Routledge Curzon, London/New York: 7–41.
Winter, E. and Dignas, B. 2001. Rom und das Perserreich. Zwei
Weltmächte zwischen Konfrontation und Koexistenz, De
Gruyter, Berlin.
Yarshater, E. 1983. “Mazdakism”, in E. Yarshater (ed.),
Cambridge History of Iran: The Seleucid, Parthian and
Sasanian periods, vol. 3/2, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge: 991–1024.
Zand, M. 1990. “Bukharan Jews”, EIr 4, fasc. 5: 530–45.
Zeimal, E.V. 1996. “The Kidarite kingdom in Central Asia”,
in B.A. Litvinsky (ed.), History of Civilizations of Central
Asia, vol. III: The Crossroads of Civilizations: AD 250 to
750, UNESCO Publishing, Paris: 119–35.