_________________________________________________
ART-SANAT 2014/1
_________________________________________________
CITY WALLS AND NOMADS: ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PARALLELS IN THE POST-HELLENISTIC AND
MEDIEVAL PERIODS
1
KAZİM ABDULLAEV
Dr., Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi
Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi
kabdullaev@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
Article concerns one of the weakly studied topics in Central Asian archaeology
specifically category of the sites with waste free space between the fortification wall
and citadel in the center. Usually on this space there no traces of any permanent
buildings. Author suggests seeing in this type the transitional form from nomadic type
of city with yurts located inside the walls around the central construction (yurt or
palace of the leader) to the sedentary form. In the article there are examples of these
sites in Central Asia of ancient and medieval periods.
Keywords:
Central Asia, archaeology, nomad, city walls, settlement, sedentary
ŞEHİR DUVARLARI VE GÖÇEBELER: HELLENİSTİK ÇAĞ
SONRASI VE ORTA ÇAĞ DÖNEMLERİNDE ARKEOLOJİK
PARALELLER
ÖZET
Makale, Orta Asya arkeolojisinde az incelenmiş olan merkezdeki kale ile şehir suru
arasında geniş boş alan bulunan yerleşimleri ele alır. Genellikle bu alanda kalıcı
binaların izlerine rastlanmaz. Yazar bu tipte, sur içinde merkezi yapının (yurt veya
liderin sarayı) etrafında yurtların yer aldığı göçebe şehir biçiminden yerleşik biçime
geçişin görüldüğünü öne sürer. Makalede, Antik Çağ ve Orta Çağ dönemlerinde Orta
Asya’daki bu yerleşim örneklerinden bahsedilmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler:
Orta Asya, arkeoloji, göçebe, şehir duvarları, yerleşim, yerleşik.
1
I express my deep gratitude to O. Grabar and J. Bernheim for their valuable advice and assistance in
the preparation of this article. In this article : I am introducing new materials and thoughts developed
from the following works: K. Abdullaev, “K lokalizatsii gorodov v yuechzhiyski period,” Problemy istorii,
filologii, kul’tury Institute, Moskva-Magnitogorsk 2000, 208-219; P. Leriche, Sh. Pidaev, M. Gelin, K.
Abdullaev, (Ed.), “La localisation de la capitale des Yueh-chih,” La Bactriane au carrefour des routes et
des civilisations de l’Asie Centrale, Maisonneuve & Larose, IFEAC, Paris 2001, 114-27.
_______________________________________________
ART-SANAT 2014/1
_______________________________________________
2
In the history of the ancient world, there are numerous examples of great
empires and kingdoms destroyed by the shattering force of nomad invasions and
then, after a certain period of renewal, the emergence of a new configuration and a
new culture. As written sources and archaeological data testify, in the history of
Central Asia it is possible to follow the very largest movements of nomads from the
written tradition, and these can be more or less correlated with archaeological sites.
In the end, the nomads either merged with the local population, or, while still
attempting to remain ethnically isolated, changed their nomadic way of life by
accepting elements of city or sedentary-agricultural culture.
In Central Asia (Fig. 1) we know of such invasions from written sources: in
Chinese chronicles from second- first centuries BCE we hear of Yueh Chih, creator of
the great Kushan Kingdom in the first centuries CE, and the Parthian empire, initially
created by a nomad tribe under the leadership of the Arsacid Dynasty. In the Middle
Ages, we hear of the mighty Tatar Mongol Horde who destroyed many flourishing
cities, including Samarkand. In the late 14th and early 15th centuries, a revitalized
Samarkand becomes the capital of a great empire led by Timur Lenk (Tamerlaine),
descendant of the nomadic tribe Barlas.
The goal of this investigation is to show how the image of the city walls
symbolizing impregnability wich the nomads try to destroy transforms into
protecting construction after their settlement.
We take these two historical periods of Central Asia disposing archaeological
evidences and giving us clear instances of one aspect of our investigation. However,
it doesn’t mean that destruction of a city walls is typical strategy only for nomads, it
is known, for example, that the Greeko-Macedinians under leadership of Alexander
the Great having being urban people destroyed several fortresses and revolting
cities. It could be logic for every conqueror of every period. Specifically for the
nomad the first extraordinary (unusual) step for the settling was to construct the
wall surrounding and protecting from the enemies people (usually from the other
nomadic tribe). The city wall has played a great role in the history of both nomad
and sedentary people, as well as in the cultural interaction between them, as a
symbol that both spiritually and literally divided nomads from townspeople.
Nomads tried to destroy these city walls in order to set up a direct contact between
their tribes and the townspeople—a contact that would help facilitate the governing
of urban populations. So, they established direct power to control over all urban
activities (industry). If the first phase of siege of a city was to penetrate into the city
and afterwards the destiny of the resisting people depended from a concrete
situation. Logically, however, it would have been more advantageous not to ruin the
cities which the nomads themselves considered resources, except in the case of
obstinate resistance and revolt. Why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The
conqueror received regularly a contribution including all kind of urban production
(textile, armors, trade: pottery, metal works etc.) and can use human resource in
different aims.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |