Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 14 (2009) 167-182 brill.nl/acss A Silver Bowl from the New Excavations of the Early Sarmatian Burial-Ground Near the Village of Prokhorovka Archil S. Balakhvantsev* and Leonid T. Yablonskii** Abstract During excavations of the necropolis consisting of burial-mounds near the village of Prokhorovka in the so-called ‘fortified site’ three burials were found. In one of them (Burial 3) a skeleton of a young woman was discovered accompanied by rich and diverse grave goods. hese included a silver bowl decorated with an engraved gilded frieze with a plant pattern in the form of a winding branch of ivy and a decorative band of three-strand plaiting. he shape and decoration of the Prokhorovka bowl make it possible to conclude that it dates from the middle or third quarter of the 4th century BC. Keywords Archaeology, Early Nomads, South Ural, Silver Bowl, Chronology, Achaemenid Iran, Prokhorovka burial ground In a report submitted by a part-time lecturer of St. Petersburg University (later to become a well-known archaeologist, who discovered, among other things, the Altai mummies dating from the Early Iron Age), S.I. Rudenko, about the completion in 1916 of his investigation of the burial-mounds near the village of Prokhorovka (Orenburg District: now the northern part of the Orenburg Region of Russia), which had previously been looted by local peasants, there is a plan of the burial-ground which he had drawn (Fig. 1). his plan, together with other materials from the report, were published by M.I. Rostovtsev.1 In that plan the letter “B” marked a structure which Rudenko had not regarded as one of funerary significance. In the publication of the internationally * Institute of the Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Rozhdestvenka st., 12, Moscow, Russia; e-mail: ancientorient@yandex.ru. ** Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Dm. Ul’yanova st., 19, Moscow 117036 Russia; e-mail: leonid.yablonsky@mtu-net.ru. 1 Rostovtsev 1918, 4, fig. 2. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 167 DOI: 10.1163/092907709X12474657004809 7/14/2009 7:40:08 PM 168 A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 Fig. 1. Plan of the Burial-ground near the village of Prokhorovka from the report by S.I. Rudenko. ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 168 7/14/2009 7:40:08 PM A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 169 renowned Russian historian and archaeologist M.I. Rostovtsev2 it was stated: “. . . near the large burial-mound there is a fortified site, the situation and shape of which can be seen in the plan provided (Fig. 2, B)”. To judge from the shape marked in the plan, at the time when Rudenko had made his survey, the “fortified site” was a roughly rectangular ruin with rounded corners. Its lengthways axis had a West-East orientation. Even then the structure had suffered from ploughing activities. Evidently, for precisely that reason, the line of the inner perimeter of the ruin had been drawn in with a dotted line – it was difficult to make out across the ploughed ground. S.I. Rudenko did not start investigating the structure in question. Since then this site had not been the object of any archaeological investigation. Yet, after the appearance of the above-mentioned publication by Rostovtsev, who had been the first to apply the historical ethnonym “Sarmatian” to the collection obtained in 1916, in Russian archaeological literature the whole early stage of Sarmatian culture in the steppes of Southern Russia came to be named after Prokhorovka, the village near which the first archaeological site had been discovered, which would be associated with Early Sarmatian culture. his was how that burial-ground came to epitomize the Russian archaeology of that period. In 2001 the burial-ground was visited by a member of the Hermitage Museum’s staff, V.Yu. Zuev, who drew a new plan of the site, which he published in a special monograph.3 According to the data provided by this author, at the time when he was working on his survey, the part of Structure “B” above ground constituted “a narrow, cigar-shaped rampart completely covered with turf and with a clear W-E orientation. From West to East it measured 26.5 m, from North to South 9.5 m and the height of the rampart was between 85 and 60 cm. Right in the centre of the structure and damaging it was a triangulation point . . .”.4 In 2003 the burial-mounds near the village of Prokhorovka were investigated by an expedition of the Institute of Archaeology affiliated to the Russian Academy of Sciences led by one of the authors of this article, L.T. Yablonskii. he preliminary findings regarding the results of this expedition’s work have already been published.5 A further plan of the “fortified site” was drawn immediately before the excavations began (Fig. 3). It turned out in fact that the upper part of 2 Rostovtsev 1918, 4. Zuev 2003, 54, fig. 10. 4 Zuev 2003, 50. 5 Yablonskii 2004; Yablonskii et alii 2004; Yablonskii, Meshcheryakov 2004a, b; Yablonskii, Meshcheryakov, 2008. 3 ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 169 7/14/2009 7:40:09 PM 170 A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 Fig. 2. Plan of Structure “B” published by V.Yu. Zuev. Fig. 3. Plan of Structure “B”, drawn by members of the Prokhorovka Expedition of the Institute of Archaeology affiliated to the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2003. ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 170 7/14/2009 7:40:09 PM A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 171 Structure “B” was oval in plan and measured 47 × 39 m: its height was up to 92 cm from ground level in its southern part, up to 76 cm in its northern part, up to 71 cm in its eastern part and up to 96 cm in its western part. he halfcollapsed triangulation pillar was not in the centre but in the western half of the structure, occupying the highest area within it. When the triangulation point had been erected, a square pit (3 × 3 m and up to 70 cm deep in relation to the structure’s upper surface) had been sunk into the structure. he corners of the pit had been aligned with the points of the compass. During the excavations, when the whole structure above ground had been fully excavated some finds were made: parts of Early Sarmatian horse harness and, lower down, three ancient burials were found, two pairs of horses’ heads which had also been buried and traces of later re-arrangements of the area in which the structure had been erected (Fig. 4). Within the confines of this article we shall not concern ourselves with some of these details, only with those which are of direct relevance to the subject of this article. Under the Structure traces of a late trench were investigated (Fig. 4). It had been let into the natural soil only in certain sections, but from the shape of those sections and the recorded profiles of the trench above the natural soil as well, it could be seen that in plan this trench formed a rectangle measuring 18 × 6 m. he width of the trench at the level of the natural soil was 50 cm, while its depth was up to 40 cm from that surface. he lengthways axis of this rectangle had a definite W-E orientation. his led us to assume that precisely this re-planning of the area of the “fortified site” had made it appear like a rectangular ruin, as recorded by S.I. Rudenko. Under the structure in its north-western section, Burial 1 was identified, which was that of an infant (Fig. 4). Under the eastern section of the structure a cluster of untidily scattered bones was found from the skeleton of an elderly woman (Fig. 4: Burial 2). To judge from the fact that some of these bones had been on the floor of the trench, it is possible that the burial had been destroyed when the said trench had been dug. he floor of the trench lay in the layer of the in-fill of the entrance pit leading to Burial 3 (Fig. 4). he trench cut through that pit, but the actual burial had remained intact. It was precisely in that burial that the find was made, which this article is concerned with. he entrance pit to Burial 3 roughly had the shape of an irregular oval in plan, with maximum measurements of 3.20 × 1.40 m (Fig. 5). Its lengthways axis had an almost exactly N-S orientation. he north and south walls of the pit were smooth, and sloped down to the floor at only a very slight angle. he east wall contained two ledges running down its whole length. he upper ledge was at a level of 1 m from the surface of the buried soil and was 25 cm ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 171 7/14/2009 7:40:09 PM 172 A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 Fig. 4. Plan of the cleared area within Structure “B”. Fig. 5. Plan of the Grave Pit with Burial 3. 1,2. Dense cluster of gold hemispheres; 3. Agate framed by a thin strip of gold; 4–8. Appliqués from the rim of a wooden bowl; 9. Bronze mirror; 10. Distaff; 11. Gold earring; 12. Beads from the right wrist; 13. Distaff; 14. Beads from the left wrist; 15. Iron and gold hook; 16. Arrowheads; 17. Iron item; 18. Silver bow; 19. Marble vessel; 20. Bone handle; 21. Grey-clay jug; 22. Iron knife; 23. Iron javelin-head; 24. Elk horn dish; 25. Parts of the mirror cas; 26. Parts of the quiver; 27. Wooden licks under the silver bowl; 28. Ram’s skull and bones. ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 172 7/14/2009 7:40:09 PM A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 173 wide: the lower ledge was 1.70 m from the surface of the buried soil and was 15 cm wide. Both ledges had nothing to do with the construction of the burial chamber and had probably been made in order to make it easier to climb into and out of the pit in the course of the funerary rite. he floor of the pit was 2.40 m from the surface of the buried soil. It was smooth and horizontal. A small gulley 40 cm wide was recorded 65 cm from the east wall of the entrance pit, which had been dug parallel to the wall in the stony floor. he gulley had rough edges and an uneven jagged floor. he floor of the gulley was on the same level as the floor of the lateral niche. he floor of the entrance pit extended westwards beyond the gulley as far as the edge of the step leading into the lateral niche. he niche was in the west wall of the entrance pit. In plan its shape resembled an elongated trapezium with rounded corners and its maximum measurements were 330 × 110 (in the middle) or 105 (by the south wall) or 80 cm (by the west wall). he depth of the niche was 2.78 m from the surface of the buried soil. Its lengthways axis was parallel to that of the entrance pit. In the north wall of the niche there was a step 28 cm wide and 25 cm above the floor level of the lateral niche. he ceiling of the lateral niche had collapsed in antiquity, which made it impossible accurately to establish what its height had originally been. On the floor of the lateral niche a skeleton was cleared, which had belonged to a young woman (Fig. 5). he deceased was laid out in a supine position with her head pointing south and facing west in a so-called ‘attacking pose’: the right leg was extended, while the left one was bent at the knee forming a right angle. he left arm was extended, slightly to one side, while the right arm had been bent at the elbow forming a right angle. When the burial had been cleared numerous grave goods were discovered. In the south part of the entrance pit, near the entrance into the lateral niche, two fragments of a deliberately broken iron javelin-head were lying in situ – a tip and a socket. Between the skull and the wall of the niche four carved and figured appliqués from the rim of a wooden bowl were found made from thin sheets of gold (the actual bowl had not survived), numerous gold nails, figured and disc-shaped small washers used for fastening the appliqués to the body of the bowl. In the same burial a narrow strip of gold leaf forming a broken line was also found. Where the bowl had once been there was a dense cluster of hemispheres made of gold (over 500 in all) between 6 and 8 mm in diameter. Between the right clavicle and the skull, lay a pendant face downwards: it was round and convex in the centre and fashioned from a large piece of polished moss agate framed by a thin strip of gold. Next to the right shoulder was a large bronze disc-shaped mirror with a long dowel-shaped handle inserted ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 173 7/14/2009 7:40:09 PM 174 A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 into a wooden pole. he mirror had been wrapped in a piece of finely woven cloth and placed in a case made of fur and covered with a thin layer of bark. Near the elbow of the right arm lay a distaff in the shape of a truncated cone, which had been fashioned from white chalk-like limestone. Under the lower jaw an earring was found made of gold. Its base was in the shape of a crescent moon 13 mm wide and there were six loops along its lower edge. Fastened to the loops were twisted chains and the pendants at the ends of these were in the shape of stylized amphorae. Around the right wrist beads were found which had been sewn on to the edge of the deceased’s shirt sleeve: beads of amber, glass, agate, cornelian and limestone. Around the left wrist were the beads which had originally been sewn to the edge of the other sleeve – made of glass, Egyptian faïence, cornelian, amber and limestone. Near the right hand another limestone distaff in the shape of a truncated cone was found. Five layers of iron arrow-heads were found by the right knee – no less than 110. hey were all tanged. On top of the upper layer of the arrow-heads traces of decayed wood were found which could have been the remains of a quiver. Together with these there was one trilobate bronze arrow-head: the ends of its tip turned downwards and its socket protruded. On the south side of the arrow-heads there was an iron hook wrapped in gold foil. It was in the shape of a fantastic beast. On the north side of the arrow-heads laid a poorly preserved indefinable iron object. Above the right tale-rural joint of the deceased was a vessel for cosmetics made of marble onyx. Between the shins of the deceased the fragment of a bone article was found – probably from the handle of a whip. At the feet of the deceased, up against the northern step of the side niche, a large round grey-clay jug with a single handle was identified. On the north step of the lateral niche laid a dish made of elk horn and articulated sheep bones. In the eastern part of the step a sheep skull was found (without its lower mandible) and the bones of one of its front legs in conjunction with its ribs. An iron knife was discovered among the sheep bones. Underneath the bones of the skeleton on the stony floor of the niche a thin layer of bark was recorded, under which it proved possible to identify traces of a wooden stretcher made of poles. In its construction the stretcher was reminiscent of a ladder: it was approximately 1.95 m long and 70 cm wide. he horizontal bars were arranged parallel to each other roughly every 20 cm. he silver bowl discussed in this article was standing below the quiver with the arrows and leaning to one side. Traces of decayed wood were found on the surface of the bowl. he bowl has a hemispherical body with a wide outturned neck and an out-turned rim. he upper concave part is decorated with ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 174 7/14/2009 7:40:10 PM A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 175 an engraved gilded frieze consisting of a plant pattern made up of curling vines, ivy leaves and clusters of grapes. Around the shoulder of the bowl there is an engraved and gilded three-strand plait with pairs of dots in its scrolls. his plait pattern, in its turn, is framed by rows of bead patterns. On its spherical, but slightly flattened base, there is a medallion consisting of three concentric circles (with a diameter of approximately 2.5 cm). he height of the bowl is 9.6 cm, its maximum diameter 14 cm, the minimum diameter of its neck is 11.5 cm and the diameter of the rim 14 cm (Fig. 6). he technique involving a gilded frieze with an engraved depiction and a plait pattern employed by the creator of the Prokhorovka bowl began to be used in the toreutics of the 5th century BC6 and then in the Hellenistic era it became even more widespread.7 For the gilding the metal smith used the chemical method,8 the essence of which can be summed up as follows: the silver surface was covered with a paste-like mixture of gold and mercury (two parts to one). hen the mixture was heated, after which the mercury evaporated and the gold settled on the engraved vine and the plait in the thinnest of layers. his method was very widely used and for that reason a comparatively large number of articles gilded using the chemical method have come down to us. In the catalogue from an exhibition of antique silver at the Hermitage Museum, for instance, there were three times as many articles gilded using the chemical method as articles using the mechanical one.9 he explanation for this can be sought mainly in chronology: plating was most widely used in the 5th-4th centuries BC, while in the Hellenistic period the chemical method for gilding became the most popular.10 By the middle of the 1st century BC mechanical gilding had fallen so much into disuse that Vitruvius, in his treatise De architectura (VII.8.4), mentions only one method of gilding – that involving the use of mercury. hus the method used for the gilding of the Prokhorovka bowl indicates a date no earlier than the 4th century BC. he shape of the Prokhorovka bowl enables us to classify it as belonging to the Macedonian type of Achaemenid bowls which came into being in the 6 Moorey 1988, 238-239. Treister 1994, 174. 8 L.T. Yablonskii determined the method of gilding while still in the field, and later this was confirmed from a photograph by R.S. Minasyan from the Hermitage Museum staff, to whom the authors of this article would like to extend once more their sincere thanks. 9 Cat. Leningrad 1985, 6. We should like to take this opportunity to set right an unfortunate error on the part of the authors of the catalogue: one and the same kantharos from the Solokha burial-mound (Cat. Leningrad 1985, No. 6) is first included in the list of metal articles gilded using the chemical method (1985, 6), and then on the next page listed among articles for which the plating technique was used. 10 Strong 1966, 11. 7 ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 175 7/14/2009 7:40:10 PM 176 A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 Fig. 6. he Silver Bowl from Prokhorovka: 1. Photograph, side view; 2. Photograph, view from below; 3. Tracing of the bowl viewed from the side. ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 176 7/14/2009 7:40:10 PM A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 177 mid-4th century BC and was extremely popular in the Late Achaemenid and Early Hellenistic periods.11 Typical specimens are provided by bowls of unknown origin to be found in Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts,12 in Hamburg13 and in the British Museum,14 as well as the bowls from the Karagodeuashkh burial-mound,15 from Mezek in Bulgaria16 and from Tukh el-Qarmus in Egypt.17 he closest parallels for the Prokhorovka bowl as regards both shape and proportions are provided by the bowls from Nikisiani in Macedonia18 and Salonika19 dating from the third quarter of the 4th century BC.20 At the same time it is essential to note that there is no trace of the main decorative element found on Achaemenid bowls of the Macedonian type known as Stabzungenornament 21 at all, i.e. the separating off of the hemispherical body of the bowl by grooves, fluting or stylized leaves arranged in a radial pattern and coming together at its base. his consideration leads us to compare the Prokhorovka bowl to specimens of Achaemenid deep bowls from the 4th-5th century BC, which have a completely smooth surface, first the bowl from Gordion in Asia Minor22 and second the specimen from Nikisiani.23 It can therefore be assumed a priori that the bowl from Structure “B”, both as regards its typology and date, should occupy an intermediate position between classical examples of the Macedonian type and their Achaemenid prototypes. his assumption is borne out completely by a find from Sciatbi (Egypt) of a clay black-glaze bowl, which dates from the last quarter of the 4th century BC24 and which provides another very close parallel for the Prokhorovka bowl. he existence of clay bowls of this type shows that their gold and silver 11 Pfrommer 1987, 56-61. According to the previous classification by D.E. Strong (Strong 1966, 99-101) the Prokhorovka bowl should be included among “Achaemenid deep bowls”. 12 Palmer and Vermeule 1959, 4. 13 Hoffmann 1961, 98. 14 Walters 1921, 23, fig. 28. 15 Lappo-Danilevskii and Malmberg 1894, 96, pl. 5, 2; Abka ’I-Khavari 1988, 106. 16 Velkov 1937, 134, Abb. 122. 17 Maspero 1907, 61, pl. 28, 2. 18 Daux 1960, 799, fig. 12. 19 Pfrommer 1987, Taf. 43d. 20 Pfrommer 1987, 59, 234, Taf. 62. 21 Pfrommer 1987, 56, 64. he author believes that the idea of this decoration goes back to Achaemenid prototypes (Pfrommer 1987, 56, note 309). Yet, it would seem to us that local Greek influence should not be ruled out, the source of which could have been kantharoi decorated with grooves and fluting, found during excavations at Olynthus (Robinson 1950, 294, pl. 190, No. 526) and the Athens Agora (Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 121, pl. 28, fig. 7, No. 691, 692). he earliest of these dates from the second quarter of the 4th century BC. 22 Young 1962, 154-155, pl. 41, fig. 1a. 23 Daux 1960, 799, fig. 12. 24 Pfrommer 1987, 64, 214, Taf. 46b. ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 177 7/14/2009 7:40:11 PM 178 A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 prototypes must have definitely been popular among broad strata of the population. Since gaining such popularity must have taken a certain amount of time, we are inclined to date the appearance of Achaemenid bowls like the one from Prokhorovka to a period no later than the middle of the 4th century BC. Moreover, to all appearances, the fashion for bowls of this kind was of relatively short duration. he materials from Sciatbi show that while bowls of the Prokhorovka type existed in the last quarter of the 4th century BC alongside bowls which accurately reproduced all the main decorative features of bowls of the Macedonian type, at the very end of that century and the beginning of the 3rd the vessels of the earlier type disappear completely. From the above discussion we can conclude that the Prokhorovka bowl dates from the middle or third quarter of the 4th century BC. Another pointer to the proposed date is, in our opinion, provided by results from the stylistic analysis of the ornamental frieze on the Prokhorovka bowl. he ivy tendril on it, which would indicate a link with the cult of Dionysus,25 was one of the most popular decorative motifs throughout the whole of the Classical period. he closest parallels for the plant pattern on the Prokhorovka bowl are provided by another clay bowl from Sciatbi,26 the decoration on a silver bowl from the Buccino site in southern Italy,27 on a glass bowl with gilding inside it from the burial-mound near the village of Gosudarstvennaya,28 on a pyxis from Bolsena,29 on a gold head-dress from Egypt,30 on a painted krateriskos from Olbia,31 on a gilded silver rhyton from Iran32 and on a cup from Hildesheim.33 All these parallels date from between the last quarter of the 4th century BC and the 1st century AD. At the same time it can be noted that while as a motif the ivy tendril on the Prokhorovka bowl does not represent anything unusual, stylistically it differs noticeably from other depictions, both as regards its thickness34 and the less striking symmetry in the arrangement of its leaves and flowers. All of this, in our opinion, also points to a date for the manufacture of the Prokhorovka bowl earlier than the last quarter of the 4th 25 Williams, Ogden 1995, 42. Pfrommer 1987, 214, Taf. 46a. 27 Cipriani et alii 1996, 21. 28 Kunina 1997, fig. 25. 29 Oliver 1977, 55, No. 22. 30 Pfrommer 2001, 47, fig. 32a. 31 Knipovitch 1941, fig. 8. 32 Lukonin 1977, fig. on page 121. 33 Oliver 1977, 129, No. 88. 34 In this respect the ivy tendril most similar to the Prokhorovka one is on a bowl found in a hoard near the village of Rogozen in Bulgaria, which dates from between the last quarter of the 5th century BC and the forties of the 4th. See: Fol et allii 1988, fig. 74, No. 163. 26 ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 178 7/14/2009 7:40:12 PM A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 179 century BC. Moreover, it is of course necessary to remember that the date of the bowl does not coincide with the date when it was placed in the grave. he presence of small dents on the surface of the bowl made from precious metal, the traces of wear and the loss of some gilding testify to the fact that the bowl had been used by its owners over a long period. What can be said with regard to the place where the Prokhorovka bowl was made? he band of plait pattern encircling it points to an answer to this question. Unlike two-strand plaiting known to us from the art of the Hittites35 and of Urartu36 and frequently found on metal articles from pre-Achaemenid37 and Achaemenid Iran,38 Staraya Zagora,39 the island of Ithaca,40 the Scythian burial-mounds – Kul’-Oba,41 Solokha,42 Chertomlÿk,43 Babina Mogila44and Soboleva Mogila45 the plaiting on the Prokhorovka cup consists of three strands, which is characteristic of East Greek production centres.46 It is already to be found on the Kelermes rhyton,47 made in the second half of the 7th centruy BC48 by a craftsman from Northern Ionia. hree-strand plaiting in relief of this kind frames the medallion on two silver kylikes of East Mediterranean origin from the tomb on Karantinnoe Shosse49 and encircles two silver kantharoi from the Artyukhovo burial-mound,50 which had possibly been produced in Pergamum. Similar plaited decoration is also to be found on a bowl from Duvanli,51 on a bowl held in the Metropolitan Museum, which may have come from Acarnania52 and on three bowls from the Toledo Museum, two of which were found in Mazandaran.53 We are not aware of other parallels from 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Maksimova 1954, 286. Esayan 1983, pl. 9,1. Lukonin 1977, 21. Dalton 1964, 13, pl. 10; Cat. New York 2000, fig. 68. Strong 1966, pl. 18. Strong 1966, pl. 25B. Cat. New York 2000, No. 146. Cat. New York 2000, No. 157. Artamonow 1970, Taf. 166. Cat. Ukraine 1999, Nos. 141-143. Cat. Ukraine 1999, No. 164. Kjellberg 1940, 167; Maksimova 1954, 286. Maksimova 1956, 222, fig. 5. Galanina 1997, 148. Cat. Leningrad 1985, No. 26; Strong 1966, pl. 30A. Maksimova 1979, fig. on page 31, fig. 24. Filov 1934, 173, 174, pl. XI,2. Pfrommer 1987, 235, Taf. 43e. Oliver 1977, Nos. 43, 45, 46. ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 179 7/14/2009 7:40:12 PM 180 A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 the Classical and Hellenistic periods.54 Bearing in mind the relatively rare use of three-strand plaiting, it can be assumed that the Prokhorovka bowl was made in a town in the East Mediterranean region. Finally, how did the bowl find its way to the steppes of the Southern Urals? If we take into consideration the time and possible location of its manufacture, it would seem that the cup together with its owner serving in the army of Alexander the Great or Seleucus I, might well have made the long journey from the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia. Here it could have changed hands and then, as a military trophy or diplomatic gift, have come into the possession of one of the Dahai leaders: we have been able to learn a good deal from the writers of the Classical period about the various kinds of relations between them and the Greeks or Macedonians, sometimes relations between enemies and sometimes those of allies. If we bear in mind the close ties between the Dahai and the Early Sarmatian (Prokhorovka) culture in the Southern Urals,55 in the burial complexes of which there is a considerable amount of imported Central-Asian pottery, the find of a silver bowl at Prokhorovka appears perfectly natural. Bibliography Abka ’I-Khavari, M. 1988: Die achämenidischen Metallschalen. AMI 21, 91-137. Artamonow, M.I. 1970: Goldschatz der Skythen in der Eremitage (Prague). Balakhvantsev, A.S. 2005: Sredneaziatskie dakhi v 4-3 vekakh do nashei érÿ: proiskhozhdenie, khronologiya i lokalizatsia. In V. Nikonorov (ed.), Srednyaya Aziya ot Akhemenidov do Timuridov (St. Petersburg), 64-67. Cat. Leningrad 1985: Antichnoe khudozhestvennoe serebro. Katalog vÿstavki (Leningrad). Cat. New York 2000: Aruz, J., Farkas, A., Alekseev, A., Korolkova E. (eds.), he Golden Deer of Eurasia: Scythian and Sarmatian Treasures from the Russian Steppes (New York). Cat. Ukraine 1999: Reeder, E. (ed.), Scythian Gold: treasures from ancient Ukraine (New York). Cipriani, M., Greco, E., Longo, F., Pontrandolfo, A. 1996: he Lucanians in Paestum (Paestum). Dalton, O.M. 1964: he Treasure of the Oxus (London). Daux, G. 1960: Chronique des Fouilles. BCH 84, 617-869. Esayan, S.A. 1983: Ob urartskikh poyasakh, naidennÿkh na territorii Sovetskoi Armenii. In B. Litvinskii (ed.), Srednyaya Azia, Kavkaz i zarubezhnÿi Vostok v drevnosti (Moscow), 32-39. Filov, B. 1934: Nadgrobnite mogili pri Duvanli (Sofia). Fol, A., Tsvetkov, B., Mashov, S., Ivanov, P. 1988: Trakiiskoto säkrovishte ot Rogozen (Sofia). Galanina, L.K. 1997: Kelermesskie kurganÿ. Tzarskie pogrebeniya ranneskifskoi épokhi (Moscow). Hoffmann, H. 1961: Kunst des Altertums in Hamburg (Mainz). 54 It appears that three-strand plaiting is also found on a silver mirror of the 3rd century BC from Demetrias (Strong 1966, pl. 29A), but the quality of the illustration in question makes it impossible to say so with absolute confidence. 55 Balakhvantsev 2005, 64-67. ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 180 7/14/2009 7:40:12 PM A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 181 Kjellberg, L. 1940: Die architektonischen Terrakotten. Larisa am Hermos 2 (Stockholm). Knipovich, T.N. 1941: Iz istorii khudozhestvennoi keramiki Severnogo Prichernomor’ya. SA 7, 140-151. Kunina, N. 1997: Antichnoe steklo v sobranii Érmitazha (St. Petersburg). Lappo-Danilevskii, A. and Malmberg, V. 1894: Kurgan Karagodeuashkh. MAR 13. Lukonin, V.G. 1977: Iskusstvo drevnego Irana (Moscow). Maksimova, M.I. 1954: Serebryannoe zerkalo iz Kelermesa. SA 21, 281-305. Maksimova, M.I. 1956: Riton iz Kelermesa. SA 25, 215-235. Maksimova, M.I. 1979: Artyukhovskii kurgan (Leningrad). Maspero, M.G. 1907: Le Musée Égyptien 2 (Cairo). Moorey, P.R.S. 1988: he technique of Gold-figure Decoration on Achaemenid Silver Vessels and its Anticedents. IA 23, 231-246. Oliver, A. 1977: Silver for the Gods: 800 Years of Greek and Roman Silver (Toledo). Palmer, H. and Vermeule, C. 1959: Ancient Gold and Silver in the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston). Archaeology 12, 2-7. Pfrommer, M. 1987: Studien zu alexandrinischer und großgriechischer Toreutik frühhellenistischer Zeit (Berlin). Pfrommer, M. 2001: Greek gold from Hellenistic Egypt (Los Angeles). Rostovtsev, M.I. 1918: Kurgannÿe nakhodki Orenburgskoi oblasti épokhi rannego i pozdnego éllinizma. MAR 13. Sparkes, B.A. and Talcott, L. 1970: Black and Plain Pottery of 6-th, 5-th and 4-th Centuries BC (he Athenian Agora 12) (Princeton). Strong, D.E. 1966: Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (London). Treister, M.Yu. 1994: Sarmatskaya shkola khudozhestvennoi torevtiki (K otkritiyu serviza iz Kosiki). VDI 1, 172-203. Velkov, I. 1937: Raskopki okolo Mezek i gara Svilengrad prez 1932–1933 god. Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique Bulgare 11, 129-143. Walters, H.B. 1921: Catalogue of the Silver Plate (Greek, Etruscan and Roman) in the British Museum (London). Williams, D., Ogden, J. (eds.) 1995: Grecheskoe zoloto. Yuvelirnoe iskusstvo klassicheskoi épokhi. 5-4 veka do nashei érÿ. Katalog vÿstavki (St. Petersburg). Yablonskii, L.T. 2004: Prokhorovskaya épopeya: moment istinÿ. In S.A. Skory (ed.), Vid Kimmerii do Sarmatii (Kiev), 110-112. Yablonskii, L.T., Meshcheryakov, D.V. 2004a: Mogil’nik u s. Prokhoronka i problemÿ khronologii rannesarmatskoi (prokhorovskoi) kul’turÿ. In 2 Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya “Skifÿ i sarmatÿ v 8-3 vekakh do nashei érÿ, posvyashchennaya pamyati B.N. Grakova”. Tezisÿ dokladov (Rostov-on-Don), 107-116. Yablonskii, L.T., Meshcheryakov, D.V. 2004b: Osnovnÿe rezultatÿ arkheologicheskogo dosledovania mogil’nika u derevni Prokhorovka. In A.S. Skripkin (ed.), Problemÿ arkheologii Nizhnego Povolzh’ya (Volgograd), 147-151. Yablonskii, L.T., Meshcheryakov, D.V. 2008: Dosledovanie kurgannogo mogil’nika u d. Prokhorovka. In L.T. Yablonskii (ed.), Rannie kochevniki Volgo-Ural’skogo regiona (Orenburg), 177-205. Yablonskii, L.T., Meshcheryakov, D.V., Val’chak, S.B., Trishina, I.V. 2004: Prokhorovka 1 – éponimnÿi pamyatnik sarmatskoi arkheologii (po rezul’tatam arkheologicheskikh raskopok). Vestnik Rossiiskogo Gumanitarnogo nauchnogo fonda 4, 125-132. Young, R.S. 1962: he 1961 Campaign at Gordion. AJA 66, 153-168. Zuev, V.Yu. 2003: Materialÿ k istorii izuchenia Prokhorovskikh kurganov v Orenburzh’e (St. Petersburg). ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 181 7/14/2009 7:40:12 PM 182 A. S. Balakhvantsev, L. T. Yablonskii / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 15 (2009) 167-182 Abbreviations AJA AMI BCH IA MAR SA VDI – ACSS 15,1-2_F6_167-182.indd 182 American Journal of Archaeology (New York). Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Berlin). Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (Athens). Iranica Antiqua (Leiden). Materialÿ po arkheologii Rossii (St. Petersburg). Sovetskaya Arkheologia (Moscow). Vestnik Drevnei Istorii (Moscow). 7/14/2009 7:40:12 PM