St John SimpsonMerv, an archaeological case-study from thenortheastern frontier of the Sasanian EmpireAbstract: This paper re-examines some of the latest archaeological evidence fromMerv, beginning with the oasis, followed by the city and finally with aspects ofthe urban economy. It concludes with a brief exploration of how this cumulativeevidence matches that from some other regions of the Sasanian Empire, includingfrontier regions such as Gorgan, and the Mesopotamian heartlands, and arguesthatcross-regionalarchaeologicalcomparison throws new lighton how theSasanian state effectively managed its resources.

Keywords:Merv,Near Eastern archaeology,Sasanian Empire,imperialecono-mies

DOI 10.1515/jah-2014-0033

I IntroductionInfamous as the final refuge and murder scene of the last Sasanian ruler, Yazd-gard III (r.633–651), Merv lies near the northeast limit of the Sasanian Empire(Fig. 1). Although historically and politically part of Iranian Khurasan for centu-ries,the city and its surrounding oasis are geographically partofsouthwestCentralAsia.As such,Merv was a key focus forSovietarchaeologists andpropagated as a primarily Parthian city.1Since the independence of Turkmenistanin 1991,Merv has been the site ofrenewed archaeology and post-excavationanalyses, many of the earlier attributions and interpretations have been revised,and the significance of the Sasanian period has been comprehensively re-inter-preted.2

St John Simpson: Department of the Middle East, The British Museum, London, WC1B 3DG, UK,E ̠

 Mail: ssimpson@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk

1 Pugachenkova (1952); Usmanova (1963); Masson (1974); Koshelenko (1977).2 Loginov and Nikitin (1993a–d); Simpson (2004); (2008a–b); Puschnigg and Simpson (forth-coming).

Journal of Ancient History 2014; 2(2): 1–28

Fig. 1: Map showing the approximate extent of the Sasanian empire (drawing: Paul Goodhead).

Locally struck coins indicate that Merv must have been taken by the Sasaniansduring the latter part of the reign of Ardashir I (r. c. 220–240).3 The Ka‘abah ofZoroaster at Naqsh-i Rustam makes it clear that by the time of Shapur I (r. 240–273), Merv and its hinterland were firmly within the Sasanian Empire, and coinscontinued to be struck there throughout the following four centuries.4 Its locationconnected it not only with Iran, but also with its traditional partner regions ofBactria and Transoxiana. It must have served as an important information-gather-ing point and, from a military perspective, it acted as a stronghold and forwardbase for Sasanian campaigns beyond the eastern frontier.This aspect becameclear during the wars against the Kidarite and Hephthalite Huns over most of thefifth century, and it was to resume this role when it became a springboard forArab-led armies entering Central Asia.

Against this background, this paper re-examines some of the latest archae-ologicalevidence from Merv,beginning with thatfrom the oasis,followed byresults ofexcavations within the city and evidence foraspects ofthe urbaneconomy. It concludes with a brief exploration of how this cumulative evidencematches that from some other regions of the Sasanian Empire, including frontierregions such as the Gorgan plain ofnortheastIran,and the Mesopotamianheartlands to the far west,and argues that cross-regionalarchaeologicalcom-

2 St John Simpson

3 Loginov and Nikitin (1993a), 227.4 Loginov and Nikitin (1993a), 229–30.

parison throws new light on how the Sasanian state effectively managed its re-sources.

Fig. 2: Geomorphological context of the Merv oasis and selected archaeological sites(after Gubaev, Koshelenko and Tosi 1998: map no. 4).

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier3

II The OasisThe Merv oasis is formed by the river Murghab which flows north from the north-west fringe of the Hindu Kush mountain range, cuts through high ridge dunes andcreates a deltaic fan before dissipating into the sands of the Kara Kum desert(Fig. 2).Mostarchaeologicalsurveys in the Merv oasis,particularly those ofintensive nature,have focused on Bronze and Iron Age periods in the (betterpreserved)northern sector (Fig. 3).5 However,despite the modern agriculturaldestruction of much of the ancient landscape and low-lying settlements, a largenumber of Sasanian sites have been recorded by a Moscow team in the centralsector (Fig. 4). The results show a retraction of settlement into the core of the oasisand within the undated territorialmarker popularly known as “the Antiochuswall” which some scholars have suggested may be Sasanian, rather than Seleucid,as its modern name supposes.6The survey concluded that:

… no major irrigation canals were excavated in Sasanian times. On the other hand, most ofthe canals and small aryks inherited from the Parthian period were reconstructed, cleanedseveraltimes and maintained in a good condition.A lotofnew smallcanals oflocalimportance were also added to the old irrigation system – in such a way the old grid ofcanals supplied with water newly-founded sites. The continuity of the canal system rein-forces the continuity of settlement patterns.7

These intertwined elements of continuity are reflected in the published survey sitecatalogue. A massive increase in the number of settlements is reported during theSasanian period,rising from 72 in the Parthian period to 162 in the Sasanianperiod.8 However,allofthe Parthian sites are said to have continued to beoccupied into at least the first half of the Sasanian period, and many of thosewhich were abandoned were succeeded by other settlements nearby.9 Similarcontinuity occurs after the Islamic conquest as 45% of the Sasanian settlementscontinued to be occupied and others were re-founded nearby.10 Moreover,the

4 St John Simpson

5 Gubaev, et al. (1995); Salvatori and Tosi (2008).6 Bader, et al. (1995).7 Bader, et al. (1998a), 191.8 This number is based on the site catalogue published by Gubaev, et al. (1995), and excludesthree where a Sasanian date was only considered possible. The lower figure of 138 is cited in thesame volume by Bader, et al. (1998a), 191. The diagnostic pottery used to differentiate these broadperiods is unfortunately neither described nor illustrated.9 This statement is based on the data presented in the site catalogue published by Gubaev, et al.(1995). The lower figure of 55 is cited in the same volume by Bader, et al. (1998a), 191.10 Bader, et al. (1998a), 191; (1998b), 193.

distribution maps suggest a cluster of settlements along the course of the Mur-ghab, as well as along canals flowing due north.

Fig. 3: Geomorphological map of the Merv oasis highlighting ancient fluvial channels andsome of the intensively surveyed areas in the northern portion (after Gubaev, Koshelenko andTosi 1998: map no. 5).

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier5

Fig. 4: Satellite view of the Merv oasis today with the approximate location of Sasanian siteslocated on archaeological survey (based on Google Earth, 2010).

Unfortunately, many small and/or low-lying sites have been destroyed by modernagriculture and this prevents a more detailed or conclusive analysis of the settle-ment patterns. Nevertheless, a total of 133 sites recorded as being occupied in theSasanian period covered an area of less than four ha, therefore falling within thecategory listed as village or hamlets in the Diyala; an additional seventeen sitescovered areas of up to thirty ha and thus may be regarded as equivalent in sizeto a town, but only three exceeded that (cf.Adams (1965): fig.6) (Fig.5).Thisstrongly implies a high level of rural development in the hinterland of the city ofMerv and closer study of the site distribution suggests a cluster of settlementsalong the course of the Murghab, as well as along canals flowing due north.

6 St John Simpson

Fig. 5: Sasanian sites in the Merv oasis ranked by size with definitions based on those used byAdams (1965) for sites of the same period in the Diyala basin.11

There is very little evidence from the intensively surveyed regions for activitybeyond this cultivated zone: the possible exceptions are several pottery scattersattributed to this period, although the pottery types are neither illustrated nordescribed.12If these scatters indeed date to this period, they offer the only possibletangible evidence for interaction with pastoralist communities on the fringe of thesteppe, a phenomenon which is much better attested archaeologically during thesecond millennium BCE in this oasis but which must have been an important partof the regional economy in all periods.13

Large prominent mounds are the most characteristic type of Sasanian site tosurvive within the oasis and these have been broadly classified on the basis of theirmorphology, with a distinction being made between tepes (circular, oval, square,rectangular and quadrangular), kalas (whether square, rectangular, quadrangularor irregular) and sprawling mounded settlements of irregular shape (Fig. 6). Thefirst two types of mound were usually elevated on high solid pakhsa platformswhich were surrounded by ditches or moats. The third category appears to have

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier7

11 I.e. villages/hamlets: under 4 hectares; towns: 4–30 hectares; small urban centres: 31–100hectares; cities: greater than 100 hectares.12 Gubaev, et al. (1995), 229–30, 232 = Sites 320, 328, 362, 365.13 E.g., Cattani, et al. (2008), 42–44.

Fig. 6: Tabulated Sasanian sites ranked according to their broad physical appearance, based onthe site descriptions published by Gubaev, Koshelenko and Tosi (1998).

been unfortified: whereas some were located in open countryside, others weresituated in close proximity to the fortified tepes.14This pattern of settlement alsorecurs in the northern piedmont zone of the Kopet Dagh judging by the sites ofAk-depe and Abiverd,15 and may prove to be partofa much wider Sasanianphenomenon.The irregularlow mounded types ofsettlementdevoid ofanyvisible traces of fortification became even more numerous across the Merv oasisduring the medievalperiod,during which period there is also an increase insettled area and the first archaeological evidence for mosques, caravanserais andisolated buildings known locally either as keshks or dings depending mainly ontheir size.16

8 St John Simpson

14 Nikitin and Sogomonov (1982); Bader, et al. (1998a), 192. Unwalled extramural settlementswere specifically noted atChangly-depe,Chilburjand Durnali-kala,allofwhich were datedbetween the fifth and early seventh centuries by the Moscow team. Other small and/or low-lyingsettlements have largely been destroyed by agriculture.15 The fort and extramural settlement at Ak-depe were investigated by a Turkmen expeditionbetween 1963 and 1978, and discussed by Gubaev, et al. (1993); (1996). The fort at Abiverd has notyet been investigated although late Sasanian material has been noted from the surface.16 Bader, et al. (1998b). A Sasanian date was proposed by Pugachenkova (1958), 206–14 for thetwo large keshks near Merv known as Greater and Lesser Kyz Kala butthe location,style ofvaulting and presence of a piece of early Islamic glass inside a mudbrick indicate a later date; cf.

Fig. 7: Sasanian sites in the Merv oasis ranked according to basic form, based on the sitedescriptions published by Gubaev, Koshelenko and Tosi (1998).

Within this region, Göbekly-depe currently offers the best evidence for the appear-ance of one of these forts (Fig. 8). Prior to excavation, it was interpreted as a smallearly Parthian town with a ruler’s house in the centre, and surmised to have aneconomy based on localcraft products being exchanged with those producedby cattle-rearing nomads.17 Excavations by the Moscow expedition headed byG. A. Koshelenko instead prove that it consists of a square fortification measuring88 m across with a centralgatehouse on the southern curtain and projectingcorner towers, enclosing a central building raised on its own massive platform.18

There is little evidence forits economy apartfrom the discarded remains ofimpressed clay sealings which had probably been originally used to seal storagejars.19

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier9

Herrmann, et al. (1999), 142. Any of the dings are probably later still and similar examples aredescribed in late eighteenth and nineteenth century accounts of Khurasan as being designed toshelter local villagers overnight or during raids: Brun (2004).17 Pugachenkova (1958), 44–45.18 Koshelenko (2007).19 Gaibov (2007).

Fig. 8: The fort at Göbekli-depe, a: reconstructed plan of the Parthian structure; b: the Sasanianreconstruction, adapted from Koshelenko (2007), figs 3, 13; note that the scale is approximate.

This fortappears to have been founded in aboutthe second century butitremained in use throughout at least the first half of the Sasanian period: coins ofthe “Merv horseman” and Shapur I (r. 240–273) were found in level III followed bycoins of Shapur II (r.309–379) and Varahran II (r.276–293) in levelIV,whilepottery, figurines and jars with inked Parthian inscriptions (proving the continu-ity of Parthian language throughout the first half of the Sasanian period) weredated by the excavators to the second halfofthe fourth century.These findsclosely resemble those from excavations at Merv itself and independently datedto the same period.20During this latest period, the earlier curtain wall, towers andcentral building were in-filled, followed by the construction of thicker and moremassive curtain walls with doors leading into rooms behind.What appears tohave been a polygonal tower-like keep was constructed on the summit.21Recov-ered from this phase were the carbonised remains of grapes and apricots reportedtogether with grain and large numbers of animal-bones.22One initial report statedan even later date for this last phase spanning the fifth to seventh centuries, with

10 St John Simpson

20 Gubaev, et al. (1990), 55, 58–59, figs. 41–43; Livshits and Nikitin (1989).21 Gubaev, et al. (1990), 57–58, pl. VIII.22 Gubaev, et al. (1990), 57.

the suggestion “that the demise of Göbekli had to do with the Arab Conquest,” butthe evidence for this is not presented;23another report mentions the presence of“a number of disconnected human bones and skulls” in the ruins of a room of thefourth period and suggests thatthe disused structure was finally reused as aconveniently elevated dakhma,similar to the evidence independently arguedfrom Merv itself as well as the site of Shahr-iQumis on the Damghan plain ofnortheast Iran.24

Two other types of fort and fortress are known archaeologically from the Mervoasis. A larger fortified site, with an apparently unwalled late Sasanian extramur-alsettlement on the western side,is known from Chilburjand,although onceregarded as a “typical Parthian fortress,” has been re-dated to the fifth centuryfollowing soundings excavated in 1980.25The main portion consists of an almostsquare site covering some 2.7 ha and surrounded by a hollow curtain with squareprojecting interval towers.26It had a heavily defended gatehouse on the southernside, a similar construction on the north side which was presumably blocked at alater date (perhaps in a moment of siege or military crisis) as the Moscow teamcould not establish an opening, and elongated corner towers which were prob-ably designed to enable torsion artillery to command access to the gates (Fig. 9).An additional walled enclosure with square projecting interval towers survives atDurnali(Fig.10).This was again initially regarded as Parthian but,althoughfounded in that period,it continued to be occupied and its fortifications wererebuilt in the Sasanian period. Within the walls the area was divided by rectilinearstreets and alleys and itwas concluded that“construction inside the Durnalifortress appears to have been rather orderly.”27 Moreover,immediately to thesouth,there was an extramuralsettlementofsome seven ha which has beendated by the surface pottery to the late fifth–seventh centuries.28A third fortifiedsite lies atthe northern edge of the site ofKöne Kishman.Apart from a briefexamination, this is the least investigated of the three sites but it appears to lackremains of intramural occupation.29 One possible explanation for this is that itrepresents a campaign fort which originally enclosed rows of tents rather than

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier11

23 Novikov and Serditykh (1982), 31.24 Gubaev, et al. (1990), 58; cf. Simpson and Molleson (2014) and Hansman and Stronach (1970).25 Pugachenkova (1952). The later investigations proved that there was a Parthian component tothe site butthatthe standing fortifications were constructed in the fifth century.The firstpreliminary report was published by Novikov and Serditykh (1982), followed by a longer illu-strated report by Gaibov, et al. (1990).26 Gubaev, Koshelenko and Tosi (1998), 243.27 Bader, et al. (1994), 123.28 Bader, et al. (1992, 1994); Novikov and Serditykh (1982).29 Durdyev (1959).

Fig. 9: Chilburj, a: sketch plan of the fortress based on air photographs andmarking the position of excavated soundings, adapted from Gaibov, Koshelenkoand Novikov (1990), fig. 6; b: aerial view, looking north (Google Earth, 2010).

12 St John Simpson

Fig. 10: Durnali, a: sketch plan of the fort based on air photographs,adapted from Bader, Gaibov and Koshelenko (1994), fig. 7; b: aerial viewof the fort and the extramural settlement, looking north (Google Earth, 2010).

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier13

permanentbarracks,and the geophysicalsurvey ofa comparable forton theGorgan plain is consistent with this hypothesis.30 However, this is very specula-tive and a Gorgan-style programme of targeted geophysicalinvestigation com-bined with selective excavation and obtaining absolute dates, is overdue.

The archaeological evidence therefore suggests a militarised yet prosperouspattern of settlement in the oasis with a high density of settlements of differentsizes, some walled and some apparently unwalled, and the largest centre beingthe city of Merv itself.Literary sources consistently praise the rich agriculturalresources of the Merv oasis during the Classical and Islamic periods.Althoughequivalent written sources are lacking for the Sasanian period, it is reasonable toextrapolate a similar situation and there is evidence for major canal off-takes fromthe river Murghab at this period. The purpose of these was primarily to facilitateirrigation in an oasis where mean annualprecipitation fluctuates from 139 to249 mm and the average annualtemperature is 14.5 °C.31 Recently excavatedenvironmental evidence from Merv helps to illustrate the missing rural economy.Carbonised plant remains attest to the cultivation of bread wheat, emmer wheat,six-row hulled barley, broomcorn millet, cucumber/melon, almond, peach, grapeand hackberry; legumes were common and provided a source of winter fodder aswellas fuel.32 Analysis of charcoalremains also proves the cultivation of fruittrees,including apple,peach/apricotand vine.33 Moreover,analysis offaunalremains indicates herding of sheep/goat, not only for their meat but also for theirwool; cattle, pig, gazelle and possibly wild boar are also present as food remains,but fish played a minimal part of the diet judging by the minimal number of bonesrecovered from dry-sieving and flotation samples.34

Equivalent environmental data for earlier periods in the oasis are still limited,although there is evidence for free-threshing wheat,hulled and naked barley,chickpeas, lentils, grass peas, cucumber/melon, grapes and plums from BronzeAge Gonur, the addition of broomcorn millet at Iron Age Tahirbaj, and variousother cultivated cereals,fruits and other plant remains at Göbekly-depe.35 Theherding of animals and hunting of game on the surrounding steppe or in riverine

14 St John Simpson

30 Sauer, et al. (2013).31 Dolukhanov (1981).32 Simpson (2008b).A fuller analysis by Sheila Boardman ofthe carbonised plantremainsrecovered from late Sasanian contexts in Erk Kala is forthcoming.33 The analyses of the charcoal remains were completed by Rowena Gale and reports are forth-coming.34 These zooarchaeological analyses were carried out by Ian Smith and the reports are forth-coming.35 Miller (1993). Boardman (1997) reports complete charred grapes being found at Göbekly-depeas well as evidence for free threshing wheat, barley, six-row hulled barley, lentils, small seeded

thickets was probably little different to these earlier periods, but the addition offruticulture is significant and contradicts the suggestion that crops such as apri-cot were a late addition to Sasanian agriculture.36Moreover, the fact that severalof these crops (almond, peach, melon and grape) are sensitive to soil salinity and“that the full suite of crops is present in broadly similar quantities throughout thesequence, strongly suggest that irrigation agriculture was sustained through thisperiod without occurrence of catastrophic salinisation.”37In addition, the discov-ery of large quantities of accidentally carbonised cotton seeds in contexts datingfrom the fourth century onwards provides the earliest archaeobotanical evidencefor cultivation of this fibre crop at Merv and contradicts the hypothesis that thiswas introduced as late as the ninth century.38

The results therefore imply a highly organised agricultural regime with effi-cient water and soilmanagement practices which enabled the cultivation of awide range of winter and summer crops, including the basis of an important fibrecrop industry, and minimised, if not averted, the risk of salinisation.

III The cityThe city of Merv is located in the east central part of the oasis and lies next to theRazik canal; the river Murghab itself flowed much further to the west. The site ischaracterised by a polygonal citadel (Erk-Kala) and a roughly square lower city(Gyaur-Kala) which measures two km across; together they cover an area of some374 ha (Fig.11).39 Each was encased within massive fortifications consisting ofhollow curtains with external plastered glacises, which were constructed duringthe Sasanian period above the solid in-filled remains of earlier fortifications.40

The bulk of the built environment within the city connects the main east and westgates in a rectangle covering an approximate area of 125 ha. Additional residentialquarters sprawl towards the south and north gates and add an additional 28 ha orso to the built up area. Each of these (unexcavated) gates was situated midwayalong the curtain except on the north side where the central position of the citadelmeant that the gate on this side was off-centre, positioned directly to the east and

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier15

legumes, cat’s claw (Prosopis sp.), almond/peach and thick walled nutshell, but it is not statedfrom what period (or periods) these samples came.36 Gyselen (1998), 104.37 Nesbitt and O’Hara (2000), 112.38 Bulliet (2009).39 Gubaev, et al. (1998), 247.40 Zavyalov (2007).

Fig. 11: Satellite view of the city-site of Merv (after Google, 2010).

commanded by a bastion of the citadel. It is evident from their morphology thatall of the gates possessed a projecting outer wall and were approached by a ramprunning parallel to the curtain. The curtain walls had towers at regular intervals,and excavations nextto the southwestcorner bastion revealed a sequence ofredesign, constant use and strengthening of the fortifications.41A fifth gate wassituated on the western wall but bypassed the residential quarters and led into anopen area on the western side of the citadel. It cannot be totally excluded that latenineteenth century attempts to irrigate the lower-lying corners of the city mayhave led to some smaller mounds being leveled; but the fact that some moundsare still present suggests instead that this corner, in particular, was substantially

16 St John Simpson

41 Zavyalov (2007).

unoccupied in antiquity for a reason. Given the existence of the separate gate, itseems most likely that this area was limited to official and military activity, usedfor drilling and providing space for the horses which made up an essential part ofthe Sasanian army. In any case, its location suggests it was limited to military andofficial activity.

It is dangerous to generalise from small data-sets but the results of excavationsin two parts of the citadel and three areas of the lower city allow some insights intothe type and organization of architecture. The layout of the main residential part ofthe city appears to have been on a rectilinear grid and two residential quarterspartially excavated in the northeastcorner.These show thatproperties wereregularly remodeled on the same alignments, street frontages were strictly main-tained and the streets and alleys themselves – at least in these parts of the city –were open, unpaved and possessed central open drains flanked by compactedpavements of bricky deposit.42The plans of the excavated houses imply that theywere originally one-storeyed and flat-roofed.As to be expected in an alluvialenvironment such as this, the prevalent building material was mudbrick. Excep-tional structures included a large building supported on a vaulted substructure inthe centre of the citadel, other massive buildings raised on solid platforms in thenortheast corner of the city, and a Buddhist monastery in the southeast corner.43

These buildings were again constructed of mudbrick and the use of fired bricks wasscarce and limited to hard-wearing patches of floor or door-sockets.

IV The urban economyCities are centres of patronage, industry and commerce, and Merv cannot havebeen any different.One modern author suggested it may have been one of thecentres of provincial Sasanian silver-working although archaeological evidence

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier17

42 Simpson (2008a).43 The first of these was periodically explored by different archaeological expeditions beginningwith Raphael Pumpelly in 1904 but a proper plan was never produced and the eroded remainswere machined away in 1991: Usmanova (1992).The two main buildings found during Sovietinvestigations in the northeast corner of Gyaur-Kala are often referred by their Trench Number, i.e. Trenches 3 and 12. Both were raised up on artificial platforms. The former was also termed theOval Building and interpreted as a Nestorian monastery: Dresvyanskaya (1974). The evidence forthis interpretation is tenuous at best. The second complex was interpreted as a Zoroastrian fire-temple by Filanovich (1974), 75–76 but the real function of the building is unknown. The Buddhistmonastery in the southeast corner has attracted the most attention in the literature and varioustheories created overits date.The mostreliable presentation ofthe excavated finds is byPugachenkova and Usmanova (1995).

for this is lacking.44 The scarcity of metal of any sort, whether precious or base,from archaeological contexts suggests heavy recycling by urban metalsmiths.45

The existence of a local Merv mint is indicated by the marks on the coins, and itwas presumably located within the citadel.It supplied almost allof the coinsfound at Merv, although only the low denomination coins enter the site record asall silver and gold coins remained in circulation and/or must have been recycled.The high numbers of low denomination coins are mostly casual losses but somehad been deliberately placed in the wet plaster during architectural modificationsand – residual coins aside – offer good means of dating for the stratigraphy. Theyare, however, of limited use for reconstructing the economy as nothing is knownabout the scale of minting versus the rate of loss. The high numbers found hereare nevertheless exceptional, although others were found in the Italian excava-tions at Veh Ardashir and surface collections in the Ctesiphon area.46 The lack ofequivalentcoins from other sites in highland Iran is surprising butprobablyreflects a combination of site formation processes and excavation techniques as itseems unlikely that only these parts of the empire had monetised economies.

With the exception of several classes of handmade cooking wares, potterywas thrown on the wheel and generally devoid of decoration, a feature whichimplies mass production.47There are few similarities with pottery from neighbour-ing regions, implying that it was locally made, utilitarian and not widely distrib-uted. In this respect it resembles the character of Sasanian pottery in other partsof the empire which offer a strong contrast with later medieval pottery traditionswhere colourful glazes, incised designs and/or added decorative elements werethe norm although the amountofpottery moved from one region to anothergenerally remained low even in this later period.48Sasanian pottery manufactureat Merv was probably extramural, as it was in the later medieval period, but anytraces of this, along with any other pyro-industries such as steel-working or brickfiring, have either been destroyed by modern agriculture or lie below the immedi-ately adjacent medieval city-site of Sultan-Kala.However, additional rural pro-duction of Sasanian pottery is confirmed by the discovery of pottery kilns at Djin-depe, Jakiper Tepe and a third (un-named) site.49 Other finds made in secondary

18 St John Simpson

44 Harper (1990).45 Simpson (2008a), 70.46 E.g., Cavallero (1966), 75.47 Puschnigg (2006).48 Simpson (1997); cf. Treptow and Whitcomb (2007).49 Merezhin (1962) discusses the evidence from Djin-depe; the other sites are numbered as Sites234 and 235 in the first volume of publication of the Margiana Survey by Gubaev, et al. (1998),223–24.

contexts within the city of Merv confirm the presence of intramural crafts: smi-thing hearth bottoms,worked horn-cores and fired clay moulds are the by-products of iron forging, horn-working and the controlled pouring of hot metal tomake personal pendants.50 Another industry is attested textually and archaeolo-gically at Merv in the early ninth century and that is the production of cruciblesteel.51Although no earlier evidence was found, probably because all the pyro-industries are thought to have been extramural, it is very tempting to see this asthe continuity of a local Sasanian industry; the scientific analysis of a sword bladereportedly found in the Dailaman region of northwest Iran, in fact, confirms theSasanian use of crucible steel by at least the sixth century.52Other items exca-vated at Merv were sourced from northern Afghanistan (basalt grinding stones,whetstones,lapis lazuli);a smallnumber offinds (beads,glass,Roman andSogdian coins) prove longer distance contact with other parts of the SasanianEmpire and beyond.Inked inscriptions on pottery vessels point to scribes whocontinued to write in Parthian language as late as the fourth or even early fifthcentury. Later ostraca from sixth/early seventh century contexts prove the draft-ing of documents in Middle-Persian and Sogdian (and possibly Bactrian, if thoseare not redeposited), and hint at the work of bilingual scribes (dibīrs) serving asinterpreters in the army as well as in the court.53

These archaeological finds from over a century of investigations at Merv hintat a well developed sense of local identity combined with a strong economy. Thecity and its oasis were well connected with adjacent regions but not reliant onlong-distance trade or the popular model of the Silk Road.

V ConclusionsThe city of Merv shares some of the characteristics of traditional Central Asianand Mesopotamian mudbrick architecture and drainage systems and, althoughrectilinear streetgrids were familiar from other Sasanian cities such as JundiShapur and Bishapur, here it probably reflects the fossilization of a much earlierstreet plan dictated by the alignment of the gates in the Seleucid fortifications.54

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier19

50 Usmanova (1963); Herrmann, et al. (1995), 41, pl. IIIb.51 Simpson (2001); Hoyland and Gilmour (2004).52 Lang, et al. (1998).53 Nikitin (1992); cf. Tafazzoli (2000), 29.54 Simpson (forthcoming). Bishapur measures 1500 x 1000 m across, is bounded by fortificationssurviving on three sides with the fourth destroyed by the Shapur river, and appears to have beendivided by major streets into 200 m square blocks with smaller intervening streets; cf.Salles

Big cities are one of the hallmarks of the Sasanian economy but Merv is one ofthe few to give an idea ofhow they appeared as almostallremain unexca-vated.55 Like Veh Ardashir,itwas primarily a low-rise city with adjoiningproperties,shared store-rooms,and circulation ranging from wide streets tonarrow alleys suitable only for pedestrian traffic.56 The occurrence of workshopdebris (albeitredeposited)in residentialcontexts suggests thatthere was co-location of activity,and houses,workshops and shops existed together in theexcavated blocks at Veh Ardashir. The material culture (particularly the potteryand figurines) suggests strong regional identity as it lacks close parallels fromoutside the oasis.However,other objects such as carved bone hair-pins offerhints at the popularity of cosmopolitan Late Antique fashion as similar classesof finds recur in urban contexts from Bactria (Zar-tepe) to Iran (Qasr-i Abu Nasr)and the Ctesiphon region (Veh Ardashir), as well as the Roman Empire to the farwest.57 Evidence for reburialof excarnated corpses adds evidence for the Zor-oastrian community,58 whereas the longevity and sumptuous decoration ofaBuddhistmonastery illustrate how this religion notonly thrived butspreaddeeperinto the empire during the Kushano-Sasanian period.59 An excavatedcrucifix mould from a late Sasanian context in the citadel illustrates the marketfor everyday expression of Christian faith in a city where bishops are historicallyattested from the third century onwards.60 The city ofMerv was therefore amulti-faith, multilingual and multicultural urban community with a monetised

20 St John Simpson

(1939/42), 93, pl. XVII. Many of these can be followed on the ground and two were confirmedduring the first season of detailed mapping conducted in November 2012 as part of the first seasonof a joint Iranian-Italian project to document the city: Amiri, et al. (2013), 18, fig. 29. The city-siteof Jundi Shapur in Susiana was also believed to have been laid out on a rectilinear grid. However,following a short season of survey and test excavations in 1963, it was argued that “the large gridtraceable within the city on the air photographs consist not so much of a rectangular arrangementof streets as a network of such tunnels:” Adams and Hansen (1972), 301. This feature explains howthe engineers were able to deliver large and regular amounts of fresh water to the population, andthese may have been standard features of Sasanian urban planning as they recur as featureswithin forts and the city-site of Dasht Qal‘eh in the Gorgan plain: Sauer, et al. (2013), 235–36, 312–18, 387.55 Wenke and Pyne (1990).56 Simpson (2008a); Venco Ricciardi and Negro Ponzi Mancini (1985).57 Zavyalov (1993) was the first scholar to discuss the finds from Central Asian sites in detail. Thepresence of an unfinished example among finds excavated by the Italian mission at Veh Ardashirproves on-site working there: Simpson (2012); a detailed discussion of these forms part of theforthcoming final report by the author on the small finds from these important excavations.58 Simpson and Molleson (2014).59 Stavisky (1990, 1992).60 Herrmann, et al. (1994), 68, pl. V.d; cf. Fiey (1973).

economy supported by a complex agricultural base and protected by a powerfulmilitary presence.

The addition of cotton to the subsistence crops must have been accompaniedby careful re-engineering of the rural landscape. Cotton picking is intensive workand the large-scale processing of the fibres implies power-driven mills, probablydriven by water wheels.Watson claims this to be an innovation of the “greenAbbasid revolution” and Bulliet develops this hypothesis further by arguing for aboom in cotton production across Iran during the ninth and tenth centuries.61Theevidence from Merv now implies a Sasanian precursor for these cotton, mixedcotton-silk mulham/malham and indirectly, therefore, silk industries.62The morerecentidentification ofcotton seeds from fourth and fifth century contexts atKara-tepe in modern Karakalpak, then part of ancient Khorezm, strengthens thisarchaeological evidence for a pre-Islamic origin for cotton industries in CentralAsia although it does not exclude even earlier evidence.63The type of organisationofproduction is more difficultto reconstruct.Brite and Marston argue thatproduction was at a household subsistence leveland this is supported by theubiquitous occurrence of spindle whorls in domestic contexts at almost all sites ofthese periods.64 This does not fit wellwith the traditionalconcept of state-runtextile industries; yet the two data-sets do imply a stable long-term local economywhich undermines the hypothesis of cotton being one of the significant new cropsdeveloped after the Islamic Conquest. The same result has been argued for otherregions by Decker, who, using combined textual and archaeobotanical evidenceand focusing on four of the crops claimed as part of the “Islamic AgriculturalRevolution” – durum wheat, rice, cotton and artichoke – concluded that “Islamicfarming structures were built atop earlier Roman and Persian landscapes: thesewere usurped ratherthan sweptaway.”65 The modern literature on Sasaniantextile industries has hitherto focused on the production and trade in high-qualitysilks and the creation of imperial workshops in Susiana at the expense of otherfibre crops.66 However, flax is commonly referred to in the Babylonian Talmudand its cultivation is attested from Pumbadita/Falluja and near Sura,67 and the

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier21

61 Watson (1983); cf. Bulliet (2009).62 Simpson (2008b), 248–49; cf. Lamm (1937), 95–99, 199–200.63 Brite and Marston (2013).64 E.g., Brite and Marston (2013).65 Decker (2009), 206. Cf. also Decker (2011); Nesbitt, et al. (2010).66 E.g., Martiniani-Reber and Bénazeth (1997); see also Wenke and Pyne (1990), 242.67 Gittin 27a: “a flax-house in Pumbadita”; Shabbos 140b: “a Torah scholar who buys a linengarmentshould buy itfrom the area ofNehar Abba.” Citations from these passages oftheBabylonian Talmud are taken from the Schottenstein edition.

use of a water wheel as a lift for the cultivation of flax fields at Veh Ardashir ismentioned in another passage.68 The addition of cotton to this textual list sug-gests thatthe developmentofwater-hungry,major fibre industries,alongsideintensive cereal cropping and dense human populations necessitated the heavyinvestment in hydraulic systems in order to guarantee extra water resources.

Canalbuilding was second nature to Mesopotamian engineers and theirpossible contribution in other regions has been over-shadowed by suggestionsthat Roman prisoners of war were responsible – but at no previous period did theyenjoy the resources they now had. It was during this period that the Tigris andEuphrates were combined into one integrated water management scheme. All thetributaries of the Tigris were diverted into additional irrigation schemes, whichnotonly boosted localproduction,butalso enabled extra water supply to bedelivered to southern Iraq and switched on and off like a modern power grid.Adams correctly regarded this phase as the apogee of irrigation agriculture inMesopotamia but over-emphasised short-term thinking and the ecological fragi-lity of these systems in his thesis of the episodic rise and fall of agriculture-basedsocieties.69 Moreover,Adams’admitted reliance on pottery independently re-corded at Umayyad sites in the IraqiWestern Desert to date some of his ownsurvey pottery type fossils to the Sasanian period clearly implies that all or someof the Sasanian canal network which connected these settlements continued foratleasta century and a halfafter the Islamic Conquest.70 Based on the lateradministrative structure of Iraq, Morony has repeatedly argued for greater con-tinuity rather than change after the Conquest,71and this fits well with an extendeddating for the canalsystems.Moreover,there is increasing archaeologicalevi-dence from the Persian Gulf that the eighth century was a period of boom ratherthan bust.72 Continuity was notnecessarily constantand some regions oftheformer Sasanian Empire may have gone into decline or seen their economiestransformed. However, the overall results support the hypothesis that continuitywas an importantforce behind the developing economy ofthe early Islamicperiod,73and this is mirrored in the impact of Sasanian technologies and customson later Abbasid practices in fields as varied as glass-working and cookery.74

22 St John Simpson

68 Eruvin 104a–b.69 Adams (1962, 1965, 1981).70 The Western Desert surveys were jointly undertaken by Finster and Schmidt (1978).71 E.g., Morony (1984, 2004).72 Kennet (2007).73 Morony (2004).74 Freestone (2006); Simpson (2003).

These schemes could not have been developed or maintained without goodwatermanagement,capable administration and effective security.Integratedcentralplanning teams musthave been a feature ofthe administration,andcivilian and military needs and responsibilities must have been shared. This helpsexplain the dual administrative and military position of the marzbans and howone of Khusrau’s secretaries, called Pābag son of Beh-ruwān, went on from beinginvolved in land reforms to becoming chief of the military chancery.75Archaeolo-gicalevidence from the oasis,as wellas the city of Merv itself,indicates thatconsiderable resources had been invested in the military infrastructure.This isconsistent with the implications of the recent Gorgan Project, earlier suggestionsthat the Sasanian army was a highly organised and effective professional body,and early Islamic accounts commenting on regular inspections, equipment up-grades, training and differential pay-scales across the army.76Because of the biasofcontemporary authors,the historically attested wholesale transplanting ofpopulations, whether deported Romans into areas of urban regeneration or high-land Iranian populations into frontier zones has generally been regarded in anegative light.77However, it must have also contributed to the sharing of ideas,fashion and experience, and helps explain some of the very close similarities inthe smallfind assemblages from urban sites as separated as Merv, Zar-tepe innorthern Bactria,Qasr-iAbu Nasr on the Iranian plateau and Veh Ardashir.78

Extended travel times from one end of the empire to another must have preventeddirect meddling of the state in everyday affairs but equally must have enabledadministrators, whether civilian or military, to take efficient control of the regionsand resources under their purview.The postings of these men,the sharing oftechnicalexpertise,and supportby an efficientbureaucracy musthave beencritical factors in the development, maintenance and survival of the empire afterits political implosion in the early seventh century.

BibliographyAdams, R. McC. “Agriculture and urban life in early southwestern Iran.” Science 136

(13 April 1962): 109–22.Adams, R. McC. Land Behind Baghdad: a history of settlement on the Diyala plains. Chicago:

Chicago U.P., 1965.

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier23

75 Tafazzoli (2000), 23.76 Sauer, et al. (2013); Howard-Johnston (1995); Tafazzoli (2000), 14–15.77 E.g., Lieu (1986).78 E.g., Simpson (2012).

Adams, R. McC. Heartland of Cities: surveys of ancient settlement and land use on the centralfloodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: Chicago U.P., 1981.

Adams, R. McC. and Hansen, D. P. “Soundings at Gunde Shapur.” In The Memorial Volume ofthe Vth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, Tehran–Isfahan–Shiraz,11th–18th April 1968, vol. I, edited by E. O. Negahban, 300–302. Tehran: Ministry of Cultureand Arts, 1972.

Amiri, M., Genito, B., et al. “Bīšāpūr and its territory (Fars, Iran).” Newsletter di ArcheologiaCISA 4 (2013): 1–45.

Bader, A., Gaibov, V. and Koshelenko, G. “Materials for an archaeological map of the Merv Oasis:Köne Kishman.” Mesopotamia 27 (1992): 225–50, fig. 41.

Bader, A., Gaibov, V. and Koshelenko, G. “Materials for an archaeological map of the Merv oasis:the Durnali region.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute (NS) 8 (1994): 117–28.

Bader, A., Gaibov, V. and Koshelenko, G. “Walls of Margiana.” In In the Land of the Gryphons.Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity, edited by A. Invernizzi, 39–50. Firenze:Le Lettere, 1995.

Bader, A., Gaibov, V., Gubaev, A. and Koshelenko, G. “The Sasanian period.” In The Archaeo-logical Map of the Murghab Delta. Preliminary Reports 1990– 95, edited by A. Gubaev,G. Koshelenko and M. Tosi, 191–92. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente [IsIAO],1998a.

Bader, A., Gaibov, V., Gubaev, A. and Koshelenko, G. “The Medieval period.” In The Archaeologi-cal Map of the Murghab Delta. Preliminary Reports 1990– 95, edited by A. Gubaev,G. Koshelenko and M. Tosi, 193–94. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente [IsIAO],1998b.

Boardman, S. “Plant use in the Merv oasis.” In G. Herrmann, K. Kurbansakhatov, St J. Simpson,et al., “The International Merv Project. Preliminary report on the fifth season (1996).” Iran35 (1997): 1–33 (pp. 29–31), pls. I–IV.

Brite, E. B. and Marston, J. M. “Environmental change, agricultural innovation, and the spreadof cotton agriculture in the Old World.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013):39–53.

Brun, P. “The fortified farm-houses of Merv (Turkmenistan) in the 18th– early 20thcenturies.” InCentral Asia from the Achaemenids to the Timurids: archaeology, history, ethnology, culture.Materials of an international scientific conference dedicated to the centenary of AleksandrMarkovich Belenitsky, St Petersburg November 2–5 2004, edited by V. P. Nikonorov,311–14. St Petersburg: Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy ofSciences and State Hermitage, 2004.

Bulliet, R. W. Cotton, Climate, and Camels in Early Islamic Iran. A moment in world history.New York: Columbia U.P., 2009.

Callieri, P. “Hephthalites in Margiana? New evidence from the Buddhist relics at Merv.” In LaPersia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 127, 391–400.Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1996.

Carter, M. L. “Early Sasanian and Kushano-Sasanian coinage from Merv.” Bulletin of the AsiaInstitute (NS) 4 (1990): 11–16.

Cattani, M., Cerasetti, B., Salvatori, S. and Tosi, M., “The Murghab delta in Central Asia 1990–2001: the GIS from research resource to a reasoning tool for the study of settlement changein long-term fluctuations.” In The Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta. Volume II. TheBronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands. Facts and MethodologicalProposals for a Redefinition of the Research Strategies, edited by Sandro Salvatori and

24 St John Simpson

Maurizio Tosi with the collaboration of Barbara Cerasetti, 39–45. Oxford: Archaeopress,2008.

Cavallero, M. “The excavations at Choche (presumed Ctesiphon) – Area 2.” Mesopotamia 1(1966): 63–81, figs 16–25, pls V–X.

Decker, M. “Plants and progress: rethinking the Islamic Agricultural Revolution.” Journal of WorldHistory 20/2 (2009): 187–206.

Decker, M. Tilling the Hateful Earth. Agricultural production and trade in the Late Antique East.Oxford: Oxford U.P., reprinted 2011.

Dolukhanov, P., “The ecological prerequisites for early farming in southern Turkmenia.” In TheBronze Age Civilisation of Central Asia. Recent Soviet discoveries, edited by P. L. Kohl,359–85. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Dresvyanskaya, G. Ja. “Oval’nyi’ dom khristianskoi obshchiny v starom Merve.” Trudy JuTAKE 15(1974): 155–81.

Durdyev, D. “Gorodishche starogo Kishmana. Otchet o raskopkakh 1956–1957 gg. [The OldKishman site (Report on the excavations in 1956–1957)].” In Trudy Instituta Istorii, Arkheolo-gii i Etnografii AN Turkmenskoi SSR V: 136–59. Ashgabat: Institute of History, Archaeologyand Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of Turkmenia, 1959.

Fiey, J-M. “Chrétientés syriaques du Horasan et du Ségestan.” Le Muséon 86 (1973): 75–104.Filanovich, M. I. “Gjaur Kala.” Trudy JuTAKE 15 (1974): 15–139.Finster, B. and Schmidt, J. “Sasanidische u. Frühislamische Ruinen im Iraq.” Baghdader Mittei-

lungen 8 (1978): 1–169, taf. 1–79.Freestone, I. C. “Glass production in Late Antiquity and the Early Islamic period: a geochemical

perspective.” In Geomaterials in Cultural Heritage, edited by M. Maggetti and B. Messiga,201–16. London: Geological Society of London Special Publication 257, 2007.

Gaibov, V., Koshelenko, G. and Novikov, S. “Chilburj.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute (NS) 4 (1990):21–36.

Grenet, F. “Regional interaction in Central Asia and northwest India in the Kidarite and Hephtha-lite periods.” In Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, edited by N. Sims-Williams, 203–24.London: Proceedings of the British Academy 116, 2002.

Gubaev, A., Koshelenko, G. and Novikov, S. “Archaeological exploration of the Merv Oasis.”Mesopotamia 25 (1990): 51–60, figs. 37–44.

Gubaev, A., Koshelenko, G. and Tosi, M. The Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta. Prelimin-ary Reports 1990– 95. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente [IsIAO], 1998.

Gubaev, A. G., Loginov, S. D. and Nikitin, A. B. “Coin finds from the excavations of Ak-depe bythe station of Artyk.” Iran 31 (1993): 71–74, pls XXIII–XXIV.

Gubaev, A. G., Loginov, S. D. and Nikitin, A. B. “Sasanian bullae from the excavations of Ak-Depeby the station of Artyk.” Iran 34 (1996): 55–59.

Gyselen, R. “q.v. Economy. IV. In the Sasanian period.” In Encyclopedia Iranica VIII (‘Ebn ‘Ayyāš –E‘tezād-al-Saltana’), 104–107. Costa Mesa: Mazda, 1998.

Hansman, J. and Stronach, D. “A Sasanian repository at Shahr-i Qumis.” Journal of the RoyalAsiatic Society (1970): 142–55, pls I–IV.

Harper, P. O. “An Iranian silver vessel from the tomb of Feng Hutu.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute(NS) 4 (1990): 51–59.

Herrmann, G., Kurbansakhatov, K., et al. “The International Merv Project. Preliminary report onthe second season (1993).” Iran 32 (1994): 53–75, pls. IV–VIII.

Herrmann, G., Kurbansakhatov, K., et al. “The International Merv Project. Preliminary report onthe third season (1994).” Iran 33 (1995): 31–60, pls. I–III.

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier25

Herrmann, G., et al. Monuments of Merv. Traditional buildings of the Karakum. London: Societyof Antiquaries of London, 1999.

Hobbs, R. “Roman coins from Merv, Turkmenistan.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 14/1 (March1995): 97–102.

Howard-Johnston, J. “The two great powers in Late Antiquity: a comparison.” In The Byzantineand Early Islamic Near East, III: states, resources and armies, edited by Averil Cameron,157–226. Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1995.

Hoyland, R. and Gilmour, B. Swords and Swordmakers in Medieval Islam. Oxford: Oxbow, 2004.Kennet, D. “The decline of eastern Arabia in the Sasanian period.” Arabian Archaeology and

Epigraphy 18/1 (May 2007): 86–122.Koshelenko, G. A. Rodina Parfyan. Moscow: “Nauka,” 1977.Koshelenko, G. A. “The fortifications at Gobekly-depe.” In After Alexander. Central Asia before

Islam, edited by Joe Cribb and Georgina Herrmann, 269–83. London: British Academy, 2007.Lamm, C. J. Cotton in Mediaeval Textiles of the Near East. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1937.Lang, J., Craddock, P. T. and Simpson, St J. “New evidence for early crucible steel.” Journal of the

Historical Metallurgy Society 32/1 (1998): 7–14.Lieu, S. N. C. “Captives, refugees and exiles: a study of cross-frontier civilian movements and

contacts between Rome and Persia from Valerian to Jovian.” In The Defence of the Romanand Byzantine East. Proceedings of a colloquium held at the University of Sheffield in April1986, British Archaeological Reports, BAR International Series 297, Two Volumes, edited byP. Freeman and D. Kennedy, 475–505. Oxford: British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara,Monograph 8, 1986.

Livshits, V. A. and Nikitin, A. B. “Parfjanskie nadpisi s Göbekly-depe.” VDI 3 (1989): 80–89.Loginov, S. D. and Nikitin, A. B. “Sasanian coins of the third century from Merv.” Mesopotamia

28 (1993a): 225–46.Loginov, S. D. and Nikitin, A. B. “Coins of Shapur II from Merv.” Mesopotamia 28 (1993b): 247–69.Loginov, S. D. and Nikitin, A. B. “Sasanian coins of the late 4th–7th centuries from Merv.”

Mesopotamia 28 (1993c): 271–312.Loginov, S. D. and Nikitin, A. B. “Post-Sasanian coins from Merv.” Mesopotamia 28 (1993d):

313–17.Martiniani-Reber, M. and Bénazeth, D. Musée du Louvre. Textiles et mode sassanides. Les tissus

orientaux conserves au department des antiquités égyptiennes. Paris: Réunion des muséeesnationaux, 1997.

Masson, M. E. “Rasprostranenie monetnykh nakhodok chekana dinastii Sasanidov (224–651) naterritorii sovetskikh respublik Srednei Azii.” Trudy YuTAKE 15 (1974): 140–54.

Merezhin, L. N. “Kharakteristike keramicheskikh pechei perioda rabovladeniya i rannego sredne-vekov’ya v Mervskom Oazise.” Trudy YuTAKE 11 (1962): 12–40.

Miller, N. F. “Preliminary archaeobotanical results from the 1989 excavation at the central Asiansite of Gonur Depe, Turkmenistan”, International Association for the Study of Cultures ofCentral Asia [IASCCA] Information Bulletin 19 (1993): 149–63.

Morony, M. G. Iraq after the Muslim Conquest. Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1984.Morony, M. G. “Economic boundaries? Late Antiquity and early Islam.” Journal of Economic and

Social History of the Orient 47/2 (2004): 166–94.Morony, M. G. “Should Sasanian Iran be included in Late Antiquity?” e-Sasanika 6 (2008): 1–14.Nesbitt, M. and O’Hara, S. “Irrigation agriculture in central Asia: a long-term perspective from

Turkmenistan.” In The Archaeology of Drylands: Living at the Margin, edited by G. Barkerand D. Gilbertson, 103–22. London: Routledge, 2000.

26 St John Simpson

Nesbitt, M., Simpson, St J. and Svanberg, I. “History of rice in western and central Asia.” In Rice:origin, antiquity and history, edited by S. D. Sharma, 312–44. Enfield: Science Publishers,2010.

Nikitin, A. B. “Middle Persian ostraca from south Turkmenistan.” East and West 42/1 (March1992): 103–29.

Nikitin, A. B. and Sogomonov, A. Yu. “Reconnaissance investigations.” IASCCA Information Bul-letin 2 (1982): 32–33.

Nikitin, A. B. and Sogomonov, A. Yu. “Reconnaissance studies in ancient Margiana.” IASCCAInformation Bulletin 10 (1986): 42–43.

Nikitin, A. B. and Sogomonov, A. Yu. “Ottiski pechatei i kleima na keramike iz Mervskogooazisa”, VDI 4 (1987): 118–23.

Novikov, S. and Serditykh, Z. “Archaeological investigations of the Merv oasis.” IASCCA Informa-tion Bulletin 2 (1982): 30–31.

Pugachenkova, G. A. “Parfyanskie kreposti Juzhnogo Turkmenistana.” VDI 2 (1952): 215–25.Pugachenkova, G. A. “Puti razvitiya arkhitektury yuzhnogo Turkmenistana pory rabovladeniya I

feodalizma.” Trudy YuTAKE 6 (1958).Pugachenkova, G. A. and Usmanova, Z. I. “Buddhist monuments in Merv.” In In the land of the

Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian archaeology in antiquity, edited by A. Invernizzi, 51–81.Firenze: Le Lettere, 1995.

Puschnigg, G. Ceramics of the Merv oasis: recycling the city. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press,2006.

Puschnigg, G. and Simpson, St J. “Margiana.” In The Oxford Handbook to Central Asia, edited byF. Kidd and S. Stark. Oxford: Oxford U.P., forthcoming.

Salles, G. “Nouveaux documents sur les fouilles de Châour. IVme et Vme campagnes.” Revue desArts Asiatiques 13 (1939/42): 93–100, pls XVII–XXIII.

Sandro Salvatori and Maurizio Tosi with the collaboration of Barbara Cerasetti, The Archaeologi-cal Map of the Murghab Delta. Volume II. The Bronze Age and early Iron Age in the Margianalowlands. Facts and methodological proposals for a redefinition of the research strategies.Oxford: Archaeopress, 2008.

Sauer, E. W., Omrani Rekavandi, H., Wilkinson, T. J. and Nokandeh, J. Persia’s Imperial Power inLate Antiquity. The Great Wall of Gorgan and frontier landscapes of Sasanian Iran. BritishInstitute of Persian Studies, Archaeological Monograph Series II. Oxford: Oxbow, 2013.

Simpson, St J. “Partho-Sasanian ceramic industries in Mesopotamia.” In Pottery in the making.World ceramic traditions, edited by Ian Freestone and David Gaimster, 74–79. London:British Museum Press, 1997.

Simpson, St J. “The early Islamic crucible steel industry at Merv.” IAMS [Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies] 21 (2001): 14–15.

Simpson, St J. “From Mesopotamia to Merv: reconstructing patterns of consumption in Sasanianhouseholds.” In Culture through Objects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P. R. S.Moorey, edited by T. Potts, M. Roaf and D. Stein, 347–75. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2003.

Simpson, St J. “Glass and small finds from Sasanian contexts at the ancient city-site of Merv.” InCentral Asia from the Achaemenids to the Timurids: archaeology, history, ethnology, culture.Materials of an international scientific conference dedicated to the centenary of AleksandrMarkovich Belenitsky, St Petersburg November 2–5 2004, edited by V. P. Nikonorov, 232–38. St Petersburg: Institute for the History of Material Culture, 2004.

Simpson, St J. “Suburb or slum? Excavations at Merv (Turkmenistan) and observations onstratigraphy, refuse and material culture in a Sasanian city.” In Current Research in Sasa-

Merv, an archaeological case-study from the northeastern frontier27

nian Archaeology, Art and History. Proceedings of a conference held at Durham University,November 3rd and 4th, 2001, edited by Derek Kennet and Paul Luft, 65–78. Oxford: Archaeo-press, 2008a.

Simpson, St J. “Ancient Merv: archaeological insights into the economy of the city during theSasanian period (3rd–7th centuries AD).” In The Turkmen Land as a Centre of AncientCultures and Civilizations, 247–56. Ashgabat: Ministry of Culture and TV and Radio Broad-casting of Turkmenistan, 2008b.

Simpson, St J. “The ladies of Veh Ardashir.” Palazzo Madama 2012: 10–15.Simpson, St J. “Sasanian cities: some archaeological perspectives from top down to bottom up.”

In Persia and Rum, edited by Eberhard Sauer, Edinburgh: Edinburgh U.P., forthcoming.Simpson, St J. and Molleson, T. “Old bones overturned: new evidence for funerary practices from

the Sasanian Empire.” In Regarding the Dead: human remains in the British Museum, editedby A. Fletcher, D. Antoine and J.D. Hill, 77–90. London: British Museum, 2014.

Stavisky, B. J. “Buddhist monuments of central Asia and the Sasanians.” Bulletin of the AsiaInstitute (NS) 4 (1990): 167–70.

Stavisky, B. J. “On a Buddhist community in Merv.” In Culture of the East: problems andmonuments. Abstracts of the papers dedicated to the memory of V. G. Lukonin (21.1.1932–10.9.1984), 73–76, 117. St Petersburg: Hermitage, 1992.

Tafazzoli, A. Sasanian Society. I. Warriors II. Scribes III Dehqāns. Ehsan Yarshater distinguishedlectures in Iranian studies 1. New York: Bibliotheca Persica, 2000.

Treptow, T. and Whitcomb, D. Daily Life Ornamented. The Medieval Persian city of Rayy. Chicago:Oriental Institute, Chicago U.P., 2007.

Usmanova, Z. I. “Raskopki masterskoi remeslennika parfyanskogo vremeni na gorodishcheGjaur Kala.” Trudy JuTAKE 12 (1963): 164–200.

Usmanova, Z. I. “New material on ancient Merv.” Iran 30 (1992): 55–63.Venco Ricciardi, R. and Negro Ponzi Mancini, M. M. “Coche.” In The Land between Two Rivers.

Twenty years of Italian archaeology in the Middle East. The treasures of Mesopotamia,edited by E. Quarentelli, 100–10. Turin: Quadrante, 1985.

Watson, A. M. Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.,1983.

Wenke, R. J. and Pyne, N. M. “Some issues in the analysis of Sasanian Iran.” In Contributions àl’histoire de l’Iran. Melanges offerts à Jean Perrot, edited by Francois Vallat, 235–51. Paris:Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1990.

Zavyalov, V. I. “Kostyanye predmety tualeta iz pamyatnikov srednei Azii kushanskogo i post-kushanskogo vremeni.” [Bone toilet articles from central Asian sites of the Kushan andpost-Kushan period], Kratkie soobshchenia Instituta arkheologii [Short Reports of the Insti-tute of Archaeology, St. Petersburg] 209 (1993): 31–41.

Zavyalov, V. I. “The fortifications of the city of Gyaur Kala, Merv.” In After Alexander. Central Asiabefore Islam, edited by Joe Cribb and Georgina Herrmann, 313–29. London: British Acad-emy, 2007.

28 St John Simpson