Founded by Arthur Upham Pope

EDITORS

Carol Altman Bromberg, Editor and Publisher Richard N. Frye

Bernard Goldman

Martha L. Carter, Associate Editor (Museum Acquisitions and Notes) Ellen Johnston Laing, Associate Editor (China and the West)

STAFF

Oresta Biloskurska, Russian bibliographer John P. Downey, Arabic and Persian bibliographer

Jan Master Andrew Oros Ann Plunkett

Aphrodite Roumell

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Pierre Amandry (Paris), Pierre Amiet (Paris), Esin Atil (Washington), Gui tty Azarpay (Berkeley), Richard D. Barnett t (London),

A. D. H. Bivar (London), Mary Boyce (London), Nina Garsoi:an (New York), Robert Gobl (Vienna), Robert Hillenbrand (Edinburgh),

Anatol A. Ivanov (Leningrad), Boris A. Litvinsky (Moscow), A. S. Melikian-Chirvani (Paris), Shaul Shaked (Jerusalem), David Stronach (Berkeley),

William Trousdale (Washington), T. Cuyler Young (Toronto)

Bulletin of the Asia Institute

Iranian Studies in Honor of A. D. H. Bivar

New Series/Volume 7

1993

Edited by

Carol Altman Bromberg

Published with the assistance of the Neil Kreitman Foundation (U.K.)

Published annually by the Bulletin of the Asia Institute 3287 Bradway Blvd., Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301, U.S.A.

ISSN 0890-4464; © 1994

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed

Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984 @'"

TYPESETTING AND PRODUCTION SERVICES BY EISENBRAUNS1 INC., WINONA LAKE1 IN 46590

Manuscripts, books for review, and orders should be sent to:

Carol Altman Bromberg, Editor Bulletin of the Asia Institute

3287 Bradway Boulevard Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301

U.S.A. 810-647-7917 /FAX 810-647-9223

D. W. MacDowall, A. S. Bennell,

and A. Sh. Shahbazi

H. W. Bailey Paul Bernard

A. S. Melikian-Chirvani Fran{:ois de Blois

Mary Boyce Muhammad Dandamaev

I. M. Diakonoff Ronald E. Emmerick

Elizabeth Errington David Fleming

Richard N. Frye Gherardo Gnoli

Frantz Grenet fohn Hansman

Philip G. Kreyenbroek D. N. MacKenzie

A. S. Melikian-Chirvani P. R. S. Moorey

B. N. Mukherjee Oscar White Muscarella

A. Sh. Shahbazi Shaul Shaked

Nicholas Sims-Williams Prods Oktor Skja?rv0 and Prudence Oliver

Harper Mary Stewart

Werner Sundermann

Contents

Acknowledgments vii A. D. H. Bivar 1

Bibliography of A. D. H. Bivar 5 Asiani and Pasiani 9 Bouclier inscrit du J. Paul Getty Museum au nom de Pharnace I, roi du Pont 11 L'embleme de gloire solaire d'un roi iranien du Pont 21 A Tomb Made of Horses' Hooves 31 Great Vayu and Greater Varuna 35 Xerxes and the Esagila Temple in Babylon 41 On Some Supposed Inda-Iranian Glosses in Cuneiform Languages 47 "Boys" and "Girls" in Khotanese 51 In Search of Pa-lu-sha, a City of the Central Gandhara Plain 55 Where was Achaemenid India? 6 7 Sasanian-Central Asian Trade Relations 73 A Sassanian Iconography of the Den 79 Bamiyan and the Mihr Ya.St 87 A Zoomorphic Stamp Seal from Northern Iran 95 On Spenta Mainyu's Role in the Zoroastrian Cosmogony 97 The Fire Altar of Happy *Frayosh 105 The International Achaemenid Style 111 High Relief Decoration on Ancient Iranian Metal Vessels: Development and Influence 131 An Inscribed Gem from the Inda-Iranian Borderlands 141 Intercultural Style "Weights" 143 The Parthian Origins of the House of Rustam 155 Notes on the Pahlavi Amulet and Sasanian Courts of Law 165 Bactrian Ownership Inscriptions 173 The Earliest Datable Inscription on a Sasanian Bowl: Two Silver Bowls in the J. Paul Getty Museum 181

D. B. Spooner at Kumrahar: The Persepolitan Legacy 193 The Date of the Barm-e Delak Inscription 203

v

:;,·c:';!JY:c;';"'li'Z•"liil. --• ·.• '

Museum Acquisitions and Notes Martha L. Carter

A Selection of Ancient Gold Coins from Afghanistan in the Herbert E. and Dorothy C. Schwarz Collection at the American Numismatic Society 207

Reviews 221

Books Received 22 7

T

Where was Achaemenid India?

DAV ID

Where was Achaemenid India?

The Achaemenid Persians escape the historian. 1

Though they ruled the largest empire of the time for more than two centuries, much of what we know about them comes not from themselves but from other, often unsympathetic, observers. The Persians were perfectly capable of writing,2

but beyond bookkeeping and the anomalous Be­histun inscription of Darius 13 they appear to have been largely indifferent to the preservation of their version of the world.4 Achaemenid rul­ers, satraps, and individuals emerge at irregular and widely separated intervals across three con­tinents, but we know virtually nothing about them, particularly in comparison with their pre­decessors in Mesopotamia and Egypt and their fractious successors in Greece and Macedonia.5

Achaemenid Persians did rule huge tracts of western Asia and neighboring regions, and their administrative arrangements in Central Asia lasted in one form or another at least until the coming of Islam. 6 However, the physical pres­ence of the Achaemenid rulers over this vast ex­tent remains subtle and difficult to distinguish from that of later groups.

Nowhere were the Achaemenids more unob­strusive than in India. In the territory of modern Afghanistan that was essentially an extension of the Iranian plateau lay the great satrapies of Aria, Arachosia, and Bactria, 7 with their capitals at Herat, Kandahar, and Balkh, respectively. 8 These large provinces were rich and important, and their locations are more or less established to everyone's satisfaction.

However, when one moves to the "Indian" satrapies at the eastern end of the empire, the picture becomes much less clear. There were

FLEMING

67

four "Indian" satrapies, so classified on the basis of similar dress styles in the Persepolis reliefs. 9

The small, impoverished satrapies of Gandara and SattagydiaIO nestled along the eastern side of Arachosia, on the plains and in the mountain ranges to the west of the middle Indus, in what is now Pakistan's North West Frontier Prov­ince.11 The larger, but even poorer, satrapy of Maka straggled along the barren coast of Paki­stani and Iranian Baluchistan and was avoided by any traveller who could take another route. 12

The little we know about these three satrapies leaves us with an impression of poverty and backwardness in a harsh environment.

The fourth "Indian" satrapy, India 13 itself, was totally different. Apparently conquered, an­nexed, or at least claimed by Darius I after 522 B.c. 14 and after the voyage of Skylax of Caryanda to the mouth of the Indus from Kaspapayros, 15

India was described by Herodotus as fabulously rich, richer, in fact, than all the other satrapies together in terms of annual tribute, which was assessed in talents of gold dust rather than sil­ver, 16 as was the tribute of all the others. The early imperial period Fortification Texts from Persepolis frequently mention India as a desti­nation of parties of travellers.17 Indian troops marched with Xerxes's army across the Hel­lespont and formed some of the contingents which tried to deflect Alexander's advance at Gaugamela. 18 Even after two hundred years there was considerable residual loyalty to the Achae­menid crown in its eastern provinces, although these troops may have been mercenaries. But we have no mention of India's capital city, virtually no idea of how its people looked, 19 no names for its satraps, and practically no notion of how the satrapy (if it ever was a satrapy) fitted into the imperial system.

~.

F L E M 1 N c: Where was Achaemenid India?

So where was Achaemenid India? We must begin by deciding whether it existed at all as an independent entity, an issue debated hotly by Indian scholars. This is not an idle question. The basis of the debate has been the fact that ( 1) there was no historically attested 11 Achaemenid" pres­ence in the northern Indus region at the time of Alexander's incursion in the late fourth century B.c., and (2) there is a complete lack of any iden­tifiable mention of Persians in Indian texts from the fifth and fourth centuries B.c.

In historical terms the most important single source is the Astadhyayi of the Sanskrit gram­marian Panini, who was born near Taxila and whose main work was written in the fifth cen­tury B.c.20 In this work, Panini used geographical examples to illustrate his grammatical points. He seems not to have mentioned the Achae­menid empire or the Persians, and his descrip­tion of governments revealed a preponderance of small, politically autonomous states in the northern Punjab and the northern Indus region which did not accord with any notions we might have of centralized Achaemenid control of the region. He does not mention the satrapal system, and there are no unmistakably Achae­menid names in his text. Mughal's work in the region of Multan on the central Indus confirmed that there was little, if any, archaeological con­tact in the mid-first millennium B.c. between that part of the Indus and cultures further west, which emphasizes the role of the Indus River as a frontier. 21

Indian archaeologists and historians have been divided on the question of Achaemenid control in India for at least fifty years. 22 Regret­tably, much of the argumentation has stemmed from a priori assumptions about non-Indian control of the subcontinent. The results of these searches remain inconclusive, and there has been little help from archaeology.

Recently another source of the first impor­tance became available to scholars. These, the Elamite administrative records known as the 11 Persepolis Fortification Texts, 11 are the single largest source of information about the early phase of the Persian empire to have emerged in years. The vital point about these tablets is that they were not intended for public consumption but for bureaucratic convenience: lies, bombast, and posturing were all very well in public proc­lamations, but there would be no conceivable

68

reason to preserve them in bookkeepers' files re­cording ration issues and kept, as they were, in a language and script accessible to few and stored in a capital city rarely visited by the Achae­menid rulers.

Among the many types of texts identified by Hallock were those he classed as Q Texts, deal­ing with the issue of rations to parties of travel­lers.23 Hallock recorded 303 separate travel ration texts (PF 1285-1579 and PF 2049-2057), of which 32 were issues to travellers to the east­ern part of the empire, including India. 24 In addi­tion, another 14 texts25 mention men from India.

The crucial point of this is that by the later part of Darius l's reign (522-485 B.c.), the central bureaucracy treated 11India 11 as just another des­tination for imperial travellers. We are not told where it was: obviously, the bookkeepers knew, or at least dealt with people who knew. But travel to India was on exactly the same footing in terms of supplies and support as travel to any other region known to have been in the empire. As far as the writers of the Fortification Texts were concerned (and they, if anyone, would have known the facts) India was Achaemenid.

With Hallock's work in hand, the debate must shift from whether Achaemenid India existed at all, to where it was. To be a candidate for the Achaemenid Persian administrative center in India, an archaeological site must have had cer­tain specific features. It must obviously have had an occupation dating to the late sixth or early fifth century B.c. It must have been large and complex, and must have been reasonably centrally located in its district and on major communication routes. It must also have been the only site of its type in the vicinity because, by analogy with known Achaemenid adminis­trative centers, it is highly unlikely that the central administration in Persia would have chosen a city which was simply one of a large number of similar sites. 26 Our eyes are drawn ir­resistibly to the enormous and long-lived site of Taxila, in the northern Punjab east of the Indus River. This is not an original idea. The site's principal excavator, John Marshall, proposed this identification in his final report. 27 However, Marshall's identification was based on Classical sources and a frankly pro-Western bias, distress­ing to many of his Indian readers. There was little in his discussion of archaeological mate­rial that would support such an identification,

F L E M 1 N c: Where was Achaemenid India?

and the Elamite evidence was not available to him. Marshall proposed that the Bhir Mound at Taxila could have been founded by Darius I after about 518 B.c., although he admitted that he had found no tangible evidence to support this view. The principal excavations on the Bhir Mound were not conducted with much regard for strati­graphic recording, and the collected pottery was in any case published in such a manner as to prevent much in the way of detailed analysis. The subsequent work of Sharif28 was intended to correct this imbalance and to check the strati­graphic sequence of the earliest large mound in the Taxila area. These broadly succeeded in their objectives but were of such limited extent that they yielded no information for the archi­tecture of the Bhir Mound.

Marshall's treatment of the pottery from the Taxila sites was extraordinarily misleading be­cause his presentation of the ceramics took the form of a series of pot types from all the Taxila sites with no regard for stratigraphical and, therefore, chronological considerations. How­ever, Sharif 's more careful excavations revealed a well-defined collection of grey wares in his two lowest strata,29 ceramics that were derived in some degree from the Painted Grey Ware Culture first studied at Hastinapura and now examined more generally by Tripathi.30 The link is impor­tant because it confirmed that the earlier mate­rial from Taxila's Bhir Mound was, on the whole, within the northern Indian tradition of the first millennium B.c. It also broadly confirmed the later sixth century B.c. date for the foundation of the Bhir Mound proposed by Marshall, although the site appears not to have been founded by Achaemenids.

In contrast to general north Indian links at the Bhir Mound, there were certain "Western" pot­tery styles common to Taxila/Bhir Mound and contemporaneous sites further north and west, in Swat, across the Indus, and on to the Iranian plateau. One such pottery style was a high­necked water jar common throughout the occu­pation of the Bhir Mound31 and found in numer­ous variants at the northwestern Pakistani site of Balambat, 32 which possibly had an Achae­menid level, as well as in a slightly later context at Charsada. 33 The same shape was found in more secure Achaemenid contexts at Kandahar in southern Afghanistan, Tepe Yahya Period II in Kerman, and possibly in the Persepolis region

and Nad-i Ali in southeastern Iran.34 A second shape found on several northwestern Pakistani sites was a wide shallow bowl with convex sides.35 The excavators in the Swat valley have dated this shape to their Swat Period VI, or the first half of the first millennium B.c.36 The shape was present throughout the main occupation of the Bala Hisar at Charsada and occurred in all levels of the Bhir Mound at Taxila. The shape was also found at Kandahar but not to the west or north: in both Iran and Central Asia potters preferred vessels with incurved sides.37

Obviously, these are tentative suggestions rather than solid facts. However, it is noticeable that some of the early Bhir Mound pottery from Taxila, whose mid-to-late sixth century B.c. date is not in dispute, bears a surprising resemblance to material from contemporaneous Kandahar and southern Iran, where an Achaemenid pres­ence is certain. This would indicate that con­tacts of various sorts were maintained between the Kandahar region of southern Afghanistan (and hence to the Iranian plateau proper) and the upper Punjab by way of the Gumal Pass area. In geographical terms such a direct route between the fertile Punjab and the important nexus of trade routes meeting at Kandahar eliminated the need to negotiate the mountainous terrain be­tween modern Ghazni, Gardez, Kabul, and the Peshawar vale.38 It also passed through solidly Achaemenid territory in Sattagydia39 and reiter­ates the importance to the empire of Sattagydia as a way station on the route to India.4° Further­more, it put the Achaemenid rulers in at least nominal control of a belt of contiguous territory including the whole of the Kabul River valley, from its source to its junction with the Indus, which would have allowed movement down the Kabul River and eventually to the Indian Ocean, as was done by Skylax of Caryanda.

So we come back to our original question: Where was Achaemenid India? We know now that it existed, although we do not know when it ceased to be a part of the empire. There are apparently no other sites in the region with Taxila's potential. But where are the Achae­menid remains? And why do we not have more historical evidence from Indian sources?

The question of Achaemenid remains is set­tled quickly. We simply do not know enough about eastern Achaemenid architecture to say whether the buildings at Taxila/Bhir Mound's

F L E M r N c: Where was Achaemenid India?

earliest levels were Achaemenid Persian or not. The only substantial excavations of an eastern Achaemenid site (Kandahar) remain largely un­published, except in preliminary form. 41

As for the silence of Indian historical records, it may be that the Achaemenid presence east of the Indus was so ephemeral, or so short-lived, that it was never really noticed, which would tie in with Panini's failure to mention it, as we noted above. After all, just as Taxila was on the eastern edge of the western world, it was simul­taneously on the western edge of the Indian world, well away from the central region of the upper Ganges and open to many influences from the north and west. More excavation at Taxila would help solve the question of whether the Persian presence in northwestern India was based there, as would more work with the exist­ing material in the Taxila museum. Until and unless another contender is found, Taxila's Bhir Mound remains the most plausible candidate for the capital of Achaemenid India. 42

Notes

Professor David Bivar first introduced me to Achaemenid Iran at the School of Oriental and Afri­can Studies in London and remained both a friendly critic and inspiring teacher when I went on to Cor­pus Christi College, his alma mater at Oxford. It is to him that I owe my continuing interest in the his­tory and culture of the borderlands between Afghan­istan, Pakistan, India, and China. I therefore offer this essay to him to thank him, in a small way, for the guidance and good example he has provided to me and to many others over his entire career. I also thank my wife, Monica Barnes, for reading numer­ous drafts of this paper.

1. There is no conventional shorthand way to refer to the rulers of the first Persian empire. To them­selves they were "Achaemenids" (Old Persian [OP] Haxiimanisiyii), based on their clan affiliation and de­scent from their eponymous ancestor Haxiimanis (OP) or Achaemenes (Greek), while to the Greeks and people of the Near East, they were Persians, which merely meant they came from Persis in southwestern Iran and which was not the whole truth because many Persians were not Achaemenids. For the purposes of this essay, the terms "Achaemenid," "Persian," and "Achaemenid Persian" will be used interchangeably to represent the ruling dynasty of the Persian empire from the mid-sixth century to 332 B.c.

70

2. See G. Windfuhr, "Notes on the Old Persian Signs," Inda-Iranian Touma] 12 (1969-1970), pp. 121-25, on the creation of the Persian cuneiform syllabary and its independence from other cuneiform systems. The Achaemenid administrators used whatever other languages were appropriate to their surroundings: for example, Aramaic (R. A. Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, Oriental Institute Publication 91 [Chicago, 1970]) and Elamite (R. T. Hallock, Per­sepolis Fortification Texts, Oriental Institute Publi­cation 92 [Chicago, 1969]).

3. R. G. Kent, Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lex­icon, 2d ed. (New Haven, 1953), text DB.

4. The editio princeps of OP texts (Kent, Persian) contains 96 attested and 8 spurious texts. Subse­quent work has revealed very few additional texts, most of which are laconic and stereotyped building inscriptions.

5. For recent analyses of the role of the satrap and the nature of the satrapy in Achaemenid Iran, see C. Herrenschmidt, "Designation de !'empire et con­cepts politiques de Darius Ier d'apres les inscriptions en vieux-perse," Stlr [1976), pp. 33-65; W. Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebeniiberlieferiingen: Gottinger Orientforschungen, Reihe 3, Iranica, vol. 3 (Wiesbaden, 1975); and D. M. Lewis, Sparta and Per­sia, Cincinnati Classical Studies, n.s. 1 (Leiden, 1977).

6. R. N. Frye, The Golden Age of Persia (London, 1975), pp. 35-37.

7. OP Haraiva, Harauvatis, and Biixtris (Kent, Persian, p. 137, DNa 22-4).

8. Pre-Islamic Herat remains to be explored. For Kandahar see S. W. Helms, "Excavations at 'The City and Famous Fortress of Kandahar, the Foremost Place in All of Asia,'" Afghan Studies 3-4 (1982), pp. 1-24. For Balkh see J.-Cl. Gardin, Ceramiques de Bactres, MDAFA 15 (Paris, 1957).

9. G. Walser, Die Volkerschaften auf den Reliefs van Persepolis, Teheraner Forschungen, vol. 2 (Ber­lin, 1966), pp. 89-95.

10. OP Gadiira and eatagus (Kent, Persian, p. 137, DNa 24-5).

11. For Sattagydia, see D. Fleming, "Achaemenid Sattagydia and the Geography of Vivana's Campaign (DB III, 54-75)," {RAS (1982.2), pp. 102-12. For Gan­dara, G. Tucci, "On Swat: The Dards and Connected Problems," EW, n.s. 27 (1977), pp. 9-103.

12. The area of Maka is now known as the Makran coast. Apparently, it has always been poor, and there is little evidence, ecological or otherwise, to suggest that it was once more prosperous. See G. Le Strange, Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (London, 1905), p. 329; D. W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (Berkeley, 1978), pp. 114-17.

13. OP Hindus (Kent, Persian), p. 137, DNa 25.

F L E M 1 N c: Where was Achaemenid India?

14. It is not mentioned in DB but is in the later DNa.

15. Herodotus 4.44. 16. What exactly was intended by Herodotus' trib­

ute list is far from clear. The argument that the Per­sepolis reliefs show vassals in the act of paying tribute at the New Year festival (A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire [Chicago, 1948], p. 238) remains at most an interesting theory because we have no writ­ten mention of this event taking place. The Indian tribute was 360 Euboean talents of gold dust per year (Herodotus 3.95). The whole question of whether any­thing remotely like this fabulous amount of precious metal was ever brought from any part of the empire in one year is too complex to consider here.

17. Hallock, Fortifications Texts. 18. Herodotus 7.65; Arrian Anabasis 3.8. 19. M. D. Roaf, 11The Subject Peoples on the Base

of the Statue of Darius," CDAFI 4 (1974), pp. 73-160. 20. J. E. Schwartzberg, ed., A Historical Atlas of

South Asia, chap. 3, 11 From the Vedic through the Classical Age," section IIIB, 11The Pre-Mauryan and Mauryan Periods" (Chicago, 1978), pp. 165-72.

21. M. R. Mughal, 11 Excavations at Tulamba, West Pakistan," Pakistan Archaeology 4 (1967), pp. 41-66.

22. S. Asthana, 11The Period of the Early Historical Culture," chap. 8 of History and Archaeology of India's Contacts with Other Countries from Earliest Times to 300 B.C. (Delhi, 1976); S. Chattopadhyaya, 11The Achaemenids and India," Indian Historical Quarterly 26.2 (1950), pp. 100-17; P.H. L. Eggermont, "Alexander's Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin Town of Harmatelia," Ori­entalia Lovaniensia Analecta 3 (1975); R. C. Majum­dar, /1 Achaemenian Rule in India," Indian Historical Quarterly 25 (1949), pp. 153-65; A. V. W. Jackson, 11The Persian Dominions in Northern India Down to the Time of Alexander's Invasion," in Cambridge His­tory of India, vol. 1, Ancient India, ed. E. J. Rapson (Cambridge, 1935).

23. Hallock, Fortification Texts, p. 6, points out that most rations were issued for one day, which meant that there had to have been elaborate supply arrangements along the entire route, along with reli­able and acceptable means of payment or credit.

24. Arachosia 8, Aria 4, Bactria 2, India 8, Kerman 6, Gandara 3, and Sagarta 1. The Indian texts are PF 1318, 1383, 1397, 1524, 1552, 1556, 1572, 2057.

25. PF 785, 1317, 1397, 1410, 1425, 1437, 1511, 1525, 1529, 1548, 1552, 1558, 1572, 1601.

26. Balkh, Kandahar, and Herat are all relatively isolated, although huge. Charsada, the ancient Push­kalavati and probable capital of Gandara (M. Wheeler, Charsada: A Metropolis on the North-West Frontier. Being an Account of the Excavations of 1958 [Oxford,

71

1962]), is some distance from the later Islamic centers of the Peshawar vale.

27. J. Marshall, Taxila (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 12-13.

28. M. Sharif, 11 Excavations at Bhir Mound, Taxila," Pakistan Archaeology 6 (1969).

29. Marshall, Taxila, pp. 398-438 and pls. 121-31; Sharif, "Excavations at Bhir Mound," p. 77.

30. B. K. Thapar, 11The Pottery," in B. B. Lal, ed., 11 Explorations at Hastinapura and Other Explorations in the Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins 1950-52," An­cient India 10-11 (1954-1955), pp. 5-151; V. Tripathi, The Painted Grey Ware: An Iron Age Culture of North India (Delhi, 1976).

31. Marshall, Taxila, pl. 122-54; Sharif, 11 Excava­tions at Bhir Mound," fig. 10-8, 9.

32. A. H. Dani, 11Timargarha and Gandhara Grave Culture," Ancient Pakistan 3 (1967), pp. 1-407, esp. figs. 5 7-8 and 60-2.

33. Wheeler, Charsada, p. 54; layer 32 was attrib­uted by Wheeler to the late fourth to early third cen­turies s.c.

34. A. McNicoll, 11 Excavations at Kandahar, 1975: Second Interim Report," Afghan Studies 1 (1978), pp. 41-66, esp. fig. 6-3 and possibly 6-4; C. Lamberg­Karlovsky, Excavations at Tepe Yahya, 1967-1969: Progress Report I, American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 27 (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. 26, fig. 8-K, O; W. A. Sumner, "Cultural Development in the Kur River Basin, Iran," Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1972, pl. XLII-T[?] [sic]; G. Dales, New Excavations at Nad-i Ali (Sorkh Dagh), Afghanistan, Research Monograph Series, no. 16, Center for South and South-East Asian Studies (Berkeley, 1977), pl. 13-2, Type Al.

35. Balambat: Dani, 11 Timargarha and Gandhara Grave Culture," fig. 58-13, 14, 15; Charsada: Wheeler, Charsada, fig. 11-10; Taxila/Bhir Mound: Marshall, Taxila, class XV; Sharif, 11 Excavations at Bhir Mound," fig. 11-8; Swat valley: G. Stacul, 11 Excavation near Ghaligai ( 1968) and Chronological Sequence of Proto­historical Cultures in the Swat Valley," EW, n.s. 19 (1969), pp. 44-91, esp. fig. 13-A.

36. Stacul, 11 Excavation near Ghaligai," p. 85. 37. D. Whitehouse, 11 Excavations at Kandahar,

1974: First Interim Report," Afghan Studies 1 (1978), pp. 9-39, fig. 6-64, 65, 66, 67, 68; McNicoll, "Exca­vations at Kandahar, 1975," fig. 5-9; J.-Cl. Gardin and B. Lyonnet, 11 La prospection archeologique de la Bactriane orientale ( 197 4-1978 ): Premiers resultats, II Mesopotamia 13-14 (1978-1979), pp. 99-154 and fig. 10; Dales, "New Excavations at Nad-i Ali (Sorkh Dagh)," pl. 19.

38. The basic route through the Gumal area is laid out in H. G. Raverty, Notes on Afghanistan and Parts of Baluchistan (London, 1888), p. 5.

F L E M r N G: Where was Achaemenid India?

39. Fleming, "Achaemenid Sattagydia." 40. A point forcibly made by A. Toynbee, "The Ad­

ministrative Geography of the Achaemenid Empire," in A Study of History (London, 1954), vol. 7, annex VI C(ii)(c)3, p. 640.

41. An edition of the 1974-1975 seasons is in the final stages of preparation and will be published by

British Archaeological Reports, International Series, in 1994. The work of the 1976-1978 seasons of Kandahar is available only in summary form (Helms, "Excavations at 'The City and Famous Fortress of Kandahar'," and references therein).

42. This contradicts the conclusion in Fleming, "Achaemenid Sattagydia," n. 16.