ACTA
UNIVERSITATIS
LODZIENSIS
FOLIA ARCH AEOLO GICA 26, 2009
Je
r z y
H
a t ł a s
University Library of Poznań
THE IRANIAN ELEMENTS IN THE THRACIAN
ART FIRST MILLENIUM B.C.
T h race an d Iran are quite distan t territories situated on tw o continents.
W hile the T h racian s in the beginning o f first m illenium B.C. inhabited the
E astern p a rt o f B alkan peninsula, at the sam e tim e som e Iranian tribes
already found their place on the perifery o f the A ssyrian-B abylonian world.
T h ank s to the w arlike history o f thus region, these tribes were in the close
contact w ith C im m erians and with Scythians, who inhabited the N o rth o f
Black Sea (including the C rim ean peninsula). In spite o f H ero d o tu s (I, 103;
IV, 11-13), who w rote th at Cim m erians had been pull out o f their territories
by Scythians on N o rth o f the Black sea, there is still lack o f archaeological
evidence and proof. A nd so, these inform ation can be treated in the category
o f legendary trad itio n o n ly.1 T he relations between these tribes were characterised by co n stan t wars and m ilitary cooperation. O n the o th er hand, West
o f Iran ian tribes (in A sia M in o r) flourished o th er im p o rtan t culture region,
created by Phrygians, who cam e from the S outhern M aced o nia.2
T here is no d o u b t o f the close relations (in the first h a lf o f the first
m illenium B.C.) between T hrace and A natolia, Scythia and Greece. N evertheless, from the archaeological point o f view we can say n o th in g ab o u t the
contact w ith Iran ian tribes before the G raeco-Persian wars. A s concerns the
T h racian art, the so-called zoom orfic style (presented b o th in T h racian and
Scythian art) had its analogies in M esopotam ia. T here is no m uch inform atio n in m o d ern literature which concern the T h racian -Iran ian relations in
art. M oreover, there are m ore questions th at hypotheses. Nevertheless, we
1 K E T D 1993, p. 145-146.
2 Venedikov 1969, p. 5; Thracians and Phrygians 1998.
can tracc som e elem ents in Iran ian art which are present also in T hracian
art. F o r the pre-A chcm enid period the m ost im p o rtan t are discoveries m ade
in 1928 in L uristan Region (in Ira n ).3 T here were found m any Bronze
objects, which can be dated on the first q u arter o f the first m illenium B.C.
A lso very im p o rtan t was the discovery o f very rich treasury in Ziwyć
(Iran ian K u rd istan ), which contained m any objects m ad e o f gold, silver and
ivory. B oth som e bronze objects from L uristan and som e objects from
treasury from Ziwyć had closer or m ore distant analogies in T hrace, which
testifies the existence o f some cultural region between T hrace and Iran.
T he w ell-know n B ulgarian scholar I. Vencdikov was the partisan of
influence o f Persian art (as the idea) on the T h racian a rt.4 In his opinion
m any objects, which were attributed by some scholars to Scythians and by
others to T hracians, were m ade by T h racian craftsm en, under the influence
o f Persian and Achcm enid a r t.5
T he Persian rule on Balkan peninsula did n ot lasted to o long - at ab out
30 years only; startin g with at ab o u t 510 B.C. when the M acedonian king
A m yntas I surrended to Persians. „A chem enids ruled over M acedonia and
T h race up to 479 B.C. and this epoch m arked in the history o f Balkan
peninsula because consolidated these tribes” .6 T he Persian invasion not only
unified M acedonia but also stim ulated the origin (in the Black Sea area) of
tw o new states, nam ely the O drisian K in g do m 7 and B osporian K ingdom .8
T he T h racian -Iran ian relations in respect o f arts can be presented in
case o f the following objects.
Cult Axes
T he first analysed in this article category o f objects is form ed by
decorated axes. These tools can be dated on the third m illenium B.C. and
are well know n from the area o f Asia M inor. F irstly it were very simple
decorated. Just at ab o u t 10th century B.C. the Iranian craftsm en introduced
some new decorative elem ents, such as representation o f anim als (lion,
griffon, horse) and representation o f persons or perhaps rath er o f gods. The
place o f deco ratio n (it m eans blade) and the form o f such the tolls testified
th at there were cult objects and not used in ordinary life.
3
4
5
«
7
8
Venedikov 1969, p. 5 and cited bibliography.
Venedikov 1976, p. 52.
Venedikov 1969, p. 7.
Olbrycht 2004, s. 20.
Archibald 1998.
H rapunov 2005.
I. V enedikov presents six axes from the area o f T hrace. T he first three
o f them derive from Tetcven (see Phot. N o 1), K arlu k o v o and from Stara
Z agora. In the opinion o f the B ulgarian scholar these axes have no practical
significance at all; only some religious symbols. T he o th er three axes derive
from K am enopole, Rilski m onastery and from an unknow n place. In the
case o f last m entioned object G. K itov shows the village o f C hom akovci as
the place o f founding.9 T h ank s to the analogy with axes from M acedonia
such the objects in T h race can be dated on 7th century B.C. T he sim ilar
axes arc know n also from the areas inhabited by Celts. So, such the tools
could be interpreted as the sym bol o f religious power or probably also as
the sign o f kingly power. In the opinion o f I. V enedikov these objects were
tran sp o rted to T h race from Iran (by Asia M inor) and so in their shape
were preserved Irano-A siatic forms.
T h e existence o f cult axes in T hrace is a fact and there is quite probably
the sim ilarity with such the objects from Iran . But perhaps in this case the
above-m entioned objects had been to close related ethnically and to certain
attributed to the given tribes.
Zoomorfical appliques from horse’ harness
T he m ost o f appliques deriving from horse’ harness found in Thrace
and dated on 5th and 4th century B.C. have m any zoom orfic ornam ents.
Q uite often there is presented a scene o f fight between anim als, as for
exam ple o n one applique derived from a treasure from Letnica, which
presents the fight o f lion with giffon.10
T he good exam ple o f anim al scene is presented by open-w ork applique
from Brezovo, which represents the presentation o f a horse (see Phot. N o 2).11
here is the so-called „ ro ta tio n a l” plate, well-know n in the area o f Thrace.
T he very characteristic horse o rnam ent in T h race there are certainly the
so-called „ro ta tio n a l” plates. „R o tatio n al” plates form the decorative element
o f horse harness were quite often on th e territo ry o f ancient T hrace. Usually
they were m ade o f a gilded silver and presented fo u r horse heads.The
sim ilar objects are know n from the territory inhabited by Scythians. In the
opinion o f some scholars we can speak o f Iran ian influence b u t in the other
opinions this was local production. In spite o f the certain Thraco-Scythic
relations an d co n tacts12, we have to distinguish between Iran ian Scyths and
9
10
11
12
Kitov, Agre 2002, 182.
Venedikov 1996.
Filov 1916-1918, s. 9.
Frako-skifskite 1975.
Iran ian s from A chem id Persia. T he Polish scholar J. K ub czak m ade the
conclusion th a t „T h racian decorations this time (4th century B.C.) seem the
result o f a long developm ent o f an anim al style, which has no prototypes or
the interm ediate form s in the native area, b u t is sim ilar to Scythians
achievem ents from 5th and 4th century B.C.” 13
Pectorals
T he o th er g roup o f objects probably connected with some Eastern
influences can be form ed by pectorals. T here were golden and silver plates of
different shape rhom b, ellipse, six-flank and sem icircular. T here were used
both by m en and w om en who belonged to the upper circles o f T hracian
society. O n the territory o f T hrace thse objects can be d ated from the end o f
6th up to th e first decennials o f 3rd century B .C .14 O f course such the objects
are know n from oth er territories too - n o t only from T hrace. O n the area o f
G reece these objects can be dated on M ycean period and the youngest
objects on this area (including G reek islands) can be dated on 8th century
B.C. T he Pectorals are know n also from U ra rtu , A ssyria, Phoenicia and also
from above-m entioned treasury from Ziwyć in Iran. A m ongst pectorals found
in T h race th e m o st im p o rtan t (from o u r p o in t o f view) are pectorals
sem icircular shape. T his shape is the connection w ith Iran ian influences. T he
best exam ple is form ed by pectoral derived from tum ulus Bashova m ogila
(the end o f 5th century B.C. - see Phot. N o 3) near Duvanlii. T he lion’s head
seen from above on this object is presented typically as in A chem enid art.
A nd so, in the opinion ó f I. V enedikova „Pectoral from tum ulus „B ashova
m ogila” testifies the strong Persian influence on T h racian artistic craftsm anship” .15 Tw o o th er golden pectorals from T h race derive from tum uli:
G oliam ata m ogila (also from D uvanlii) and from the village o f D älboki (near
S tara Zagora). T he golden pectorals from T hrace can be dated on the second
h alf o f 5th century B.C. O n the other hand on the second h alf o f 4th century
B.C. can be d ated three semicircular silver pectorals from : M ezek, Vrbica and
Jankovo. In the opinion o f I. Venedikov three golden pectorals from T hrace
form s the p a rt o f an arm am ent. On the o th er han d the pectorals m ade of
silver (in the opinion o f this scholar) bear the signs o f to reu tic under the
strong E astern influence. This influence can be presented not only in shape
but also in the m ode o f decoration o f above-m entioned objects.
13 Kubczak 1984, s. 75.
14 Venedikov, Gerasimov 1978, p. 49-51.
15 Venedikov, Gerasimov 1978, p. 50. See also: Venedikov 1969b, p. 21-33.
H ow ever, o th er scholars are m ore conscious as to the Persian origin o f
T h racian pectorals as testifies the following q u o tatio n : „T he lion m otiv on
this orn am en t m ay have derived from provincial Persian art, and parallels
from the Ziwiye tresaure m ay also be m entioned, but the lion’s head seen
from above, which also appears in early T h racian jewellery, has good
parallels on early Lesbian billon coins” .16
Rythons
T he ry th o n s are one o f the m ost com m on utensils in T hrace (see Phot.
No 4 and N o 5).17 T here were m ade o f different m aterials, also o f gold or
silver. P erhaps the best know n T h racian rythons belong to the treasury
from P an agiu rish tc.18 O ther examples can be form ed by rython from the
village o f B o ro v o 19 and Z latinica.20 Such the objects are well know n also
from the o ther territories and from different times - also from Ira n .21 The
exam ple o f ry th o n found in T ranscaucasia can be form ed by rython found
in the village o f E rebuni in A rm enia.22
O n the exam ple o f rythons the influence o f Iranian art on T h racian one
is perhaps best testified in com parison with the other artistic objects. Perhaps
the only one exam ple is w orth m entioning - nam ely from D uvanlii, where
I. V enedikov see the connection with Iran in silver am p h o ra - ryth o n from
the tum ulus o f K u k u v a m ogila. A nd so this object is one o f the best
exam ples o f A chem enid torentics.23
Appliques from shields from Rozovec and Panagiurishte
F rom the foundings from R ozovec we know n eight appliques and from
P anagiurishte only five (see Phot. N o 6 and N o 7). In each case the
collection is consisted o f one applique quadrangle in shape and o f several
16 Bouzek, O ndŕejová 1987, p. 69.
17 M arasov 1976; M arazov 1978.
18 Venedikov 1961.
19 Ivanov 1982.
20 The tum ulus o f Zlatinica, which contains very rich sepulchral objects was not so far
described by archeologists. There are only press and internet information.
21 G hirshm an 1962.
22 M arkarjan 2002.
23 Venedikov, Gerasimov 1978, p. 42.
round. T he charactristic dccoration o f these applique is um bo in the central
part. W hile the appliques from Rozovcc do not have any decorations, the
appliques from Panagiurishte have in full animal and floral decorations. I here
arc some analogies, som e scholars see them in K u b a n b u t others sec some
similarities in the treasury o f Iranian Ziwyć. T he appliques from Rozovcc can
be dated on the first h alf of 4th century B.C. b u t the appliques from
Panagiurishte on the second half o f this century. Perhaps the appliques derived
from the territory o f m o d ern Bulgaria can be traced also in the Iranian art.
The sepulchral architecture
Some scholars see som e relations (both direct and indcrcct) between
Iran and T hrace also in the area o f sepulchral architecture. T he Bulgarian
scholar Julia Välcva m ade a proposition th at the tom b-cult com plex under
the tum ulus o f O strusha m ogila (Phot. N o 8) in the K azan lak Valley
(B ulgaria) was perhaps based on the tom b o f C yrus II the G reat in Iran in
P asargadai (P hot. N o 9).24 In her opinion the sim ilarity between these two
objects is based on the fact th at rath er small m onolithic grave cham ber (in
both cases) is situated on the a lot large platform . O n the other hand there
arc m any differences between these tw o tom bs, which the Bulgarian scholar
describes by the different econom ic possibilities and different estethic views.
In the case o f tom b o f O strusha m ogila the tum ulus is com pletely on the
w hole grave co n stru ctio n and the m onolithic grave cham ber was ju st one
room in the vast cult com plex.25 But in the opinion o f J. Váleva perhaps in
O stru sha m ogila at first existed only the m onolithic grave cham ber and
o th er room s were built later. Perhaps also the tum ulus (in T h racian - M a cedonian trad itio n ) was m ade later. And this could be the reason of
above-m entioned differences. T he B ulgarian scholar m ad e a hypothesis
(or this is a kind o f science fiction) th at perhaps d u rin g the expedition of
A lexander the G reat on E ast the M acedonian king was accom panied by
any high rank in g T h racian who simply saw the tom b o f C yrus the G reat in
P asargadai and transferred this idea to Thrace. But she w rote next th at the
tom b o f C yrus was well know n in the ancient w orld even before the
Hellenistic times, which can be testified by such the sepulchral objects from
Asia M in o r like (dated on 5th century B.C. and transferred to British
M useum ) N ereid M o num ent (Phot. N o 10)26 from X an th o s (the capital of
24 Váleva 1994, p. 61.
25 Kitov 1994a; Kitov 1994b.
24 Bean 1978, p. 60.
Likia - m o dern K inik in Turkey) o r the fam ous m ausoleum o f M auzolosa
in H alik arn as (m odern B odrum in Turkey). T he sculptures from Bodrum
were transferred to British M useum as well. A nd so, th e idea o f such the
type o f tom b in T hrace perhaps did not derived from Persia but from any
o th er tom b from A sia M inor, which was m uch closer to T h race (both in
geographical and cultural term s) than Iran. In the capital o f Likia X anthos
there are m any great tom bs derived from different tim es, b oth earlier and
later th at tom b from O strusha m ogila, where can be find any similarities
with the to m b o f C yrus the G reat (See Phot. N o 11 and N o 12). But
perhaps the tom b o f C yrus the G reat was based on any o th er tom b from
A n atolia and the idea th at the tom b o f O strusha m ogila perhaps was based
on the tom b o f C yrus the G reat would be falsified.
In sum o f the above-m entioned opinions concerning som e similarities
(on some exam ples) between the sepulchral architecture o f Iran and Thrace
we have to be very prudence. Perhaps the m ore system atic archeological
investigations on the area o f ancient T hrace on ancient sepulchral architecture will verify o r falsify o u r hypotheses.
T here are m any theories concerning the origin o f a T h racian art. The
well know n m odern scholar G. K itov see m any connections between Thrace
and M ycenae. In his opinion „T he T h racian art. as a whole, especially as
concerns the architecture and toreutic, is result o f early and deep cultural
unity between T h race and M ycenae” .27 As concerns the connections with
Scythian and Persian art he tries to dim inish its significance. He rather
speaks o f „E astern trad itio n s” in T h racian art. G . K itov this Eastern
influence secs by the influence o f old G reek art in the second q u arte r o f the
first m illenium B.C. - thanks to the relations with A sia M in o r and as
a result o f Achcm enid invasion on B alkan peninsula du rin g the Persian
w ars.28 A nd so, only in this last case we can speak o f the direct Persian
influence.
T h e Czech scholars J. Bouzek and I. O ndrejova describe the different
territorial relations o f T h racian art. between T hrace, M acedonia, Iran and
Scythia in the 4th century B.C.29
In this article there were reminded (in a general form ) such the categories
o f objects from th e territo ry o f ancient T h ra ce w hich are connected
(in opinion o f som e scholars) with the O riental or even Iran ian influences.
In m any cases the com parison o f form o f such a rts ’ objects seems to be
logical b u t it could no t be treated as certain. Q uite often the sim ilar m otives
were used not only in T h race and Iran but in T ranscaucasia, G reek islands
27 Kitov, Agre 2002, s. 201.
28 Kitov, Agre 2002, s. 201.
29 Bouzek, Ondrejova 1987.
and first o f all in A natolia. Perhaps better would be a hypothesis o f a certain
cultural unity o f the area between T hrace and Iran in the first m illenium
B.C. th an building o f som e theories lacking o f evidence.
T here is no d o u b t th at the Persian rule on B alkan peninsula (although
quite sh o rt) was very significant in different areas o f the hum an life. First
o f all we have to underline the process o f consolidation and inner changes
am ongst som e T h racians, which culm inated in the beginning o f the O drician
kingdom . Also the m odel o f pow er in T hrace was certainly different from
the A th en ian dem ocracy b u t it was different as well from the Persian
auth o cratic pow er.30 On the o ther hand there were some Persian influences
also in term s o f power. W e can be in com m on with saying th at: „Achem enid
Persia was the m odel o f political system and som e h ab its” .31 T he m odel for
T h race was certainly also Persian habits, arm y and its organization. The
im p o rtan t is also the Persian influence on T h racian coins.32
M oreover, we have to rem em ber th at m any T h racian s served in the
arm y o f A lexander the G reat. W ithout their contrib u tio n the M acedonian
arm y would be considerably weaker. Some o f them stayed in A sia for long
as colonists. O n the o th er hand, these w ho returned to T h race, to o k with
them both some concrete objects and their ideas, w hich afterw ards flourished
in the form o f sim ilar a rt’ objects.33 W e can see m any sim ilarities between
Persia and T h race (in the area o f arm y, state in stitutions o r habits), which
seem to be quite obvious. On the o ther hand the relations in area o f art are
still difficult to establish and there is a strong need for further archaeological
and historical investigations. C ertainly there was som e influence o f Iranian
art on the T h racian art, b u t there is still the question was it strong? Also
unclear rem ain relations in the area o f sepulchral a rt (as was w ritcn above).
Bibliography
Archibald 1998 =
B arr-Sharrar 1986
cedonia Before
Thessaloniki, p.
Bean 1978 = G .
Z. H. Archibald, The Odrysian Kingdom o f Thrace, Oxford.
= B. B arr-Sharrar, “Eastern Influence on the Toreutic A rt of M athe Conquest o f Alexander the G reat” , [in:] Ancient Macedonia IV,
71-82.
E. Bean, Lycian Turkey. An Archeological guide, London.
30 In the older books the town o f Seuthopolis was named as the p ro o f of authocratic power,
where the seat of the ruler (together with the temple) was isolated from the rest o f a town
by a strong defensive wall.
31 Olbrycht 2004, p. 20-21.
32 Picard 2000.
33 In this place I would like to thank to M. Olbrycht (Rzeszów Univ.) for his very valuable
rem arks concerning the Iranian-Thracians relations.
Bouzek, Ondrejova 1987 = J. Bouzek, I. Ondŕejová, Some notes on the relations on
the Thracian, M acedonian, Iranian and Scythian arts in the fourth century B.C., Eirene,
24, p. 67-93.
Dimitrov 1960 = D. P. Dimitrov, G radoustrojstvo i architektura na trakijskija grad Sevtopolis, Archeoligija, 2, p. 3-15.
Ebbinghaus 1999 = S. Ebbinghaus, “Between Geere and Persia: R hyta in Thrace from the
Late 5th to the Early 3rd centuries B.C.” , [in:] G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks
West and East (Mnemosyne, Supplement 196), Leiden/Boston/Köln, p. 385-425.
Farkas 1981 = A. E. Farkas, Style and Subject M atter in Native Thracian A rt, Metropolitan
Museum Journal, vol. 16, p. 33-48.
Filov 1916-1918 = B. Filov, Pametnici na trakijskoto izkustvo, Izvestia na Blgarskoto
Archeologiieskoto Druiestvo, 6, p. 1-56.
Fol, Marazov 1977 = A. Fol, 1. M arazov, Thrace and the Thracians, London.
Frako-skifskite 1975 = Frako-skifskite kulturnyje svjazi, Studia Thracica, 1.
Ghirshman 1962 = R. G hirshm an, “Le rhyton en Iran” , [in:] Artibus Asiae, vol. 25,1,
Zurich, p. 57-80.
Hrapunov 2005 = I. N. H rapunov, Drevnjaja istorija Kryma, Simferopol.
Ivanov 1982 = D . Ivanov, Trakijskoto srebrno skrovište ot selo Borovo, Godišnik na muzeite
ot Severná Bälgarija, kn. 8, p. 29-35.
KETD 1993 = Kratka enciklopedija trakijska drevnost, Sofija.
Kitov 1994a = G . K itov, “Novi pametnici na trakijskata k ultura ot mogilnija nekropol
Šipka-Šejnovo v K azanlaško” , [in:] Pár vi meídunaroden simpozium "Sevtopolis". "Nadgrobnite mogili v jugostočna Evropa, Veliko Tm ovo, p. 105-115.
Kitov 1994b = G . Kitov, Trakijski grobnično-kultov kompleks v mogilata Ostruša kraj
šipka, Probierni na Izkustvoto, 4, p. 13-20.
Kitov, Agre 2002 = G . Kitov, D. Agre, Vävedenie v trakijskata archeologija, Sofija.
Kubczak 1984 = J. Kubczak, Trackie a scytyjskie ozdoby rzędu końskiego w układzie
rotacyjnym, Balcanica Posnaniensia. Acta et studia, t. 1, p. 65-78.
M arkarjan 2002 = A. M arkarjan, Serebjanyj riton iż Erebuni, Istoriko-Filologičeskij Žurnál
(Erevan), 2, p. 166-177.
Marasov 1976 = I. M arasov, Les rhytons thraces (IV' - I l ľ s. av. n. ere), Pulpudeva, 1,
p. 206-212.
Marazov 1977 = I. M arazov, Influences et originalite ou ľ lra n et la Thrace, Thracia,
4, p. 15-31.
M arazov 1978 = I. M arazov, Ritonite v drevná Trakija, Sofija.
Paspalas 2000 = S. A. Paspalas, On Persian-Type Furniture in M acedonia: The Recognition and Transm ission o f Form s, American Journal o f Archaeology, vol. 104, N o 3,
p. 531-560.
Picard 2000 = O. Picard, “ M onnayages en Thrace á ľépoque achéménide”, [in:] Casabonne
(ed.), Mécanismes et innovations monétaires dans l ’Anatolie achéménide. Numismatique et
Histoire, Actes de la Table Ronde ďlstanbul, 22-23 mai 1997, Istanbul/Paris, p. 239-253.
Válcva 1994 = J. Väleva, Trakijski i makedonski monum entalni grobnici, Probierni na
Izkustvoto, 3, p. 55-62.
Olbrycht 2004 = M . Olbrycht, Aleksander Wielki i świat irański, Rzeszów.
Thracians and Phrygians 1998 = Thracians and Phrygians: Problems o f Parallelism. Proceedings o f an International Symposium on the Archaeology, History and Ancient Languages
of Thrace and Phrygia. A nkara, 3-4 June 1995, Ankara.
Venedikov 1961 = 1. Venedikov, Panagjurskoto zlatno skrovište, Sofija.
Venedikov 1969a = I. Venedikov, “Ľ a r t thrace et ľ a rt achéménide” , [in:] Actes du Premier
Congrés International des etudes Balkaniques et sud-est européennes, II, Sofia, p. 381-396.
Venedikov 1969b = 1. Venedikov, Predachemenidski Iran i Trakija, Izvestija na Archealogičeskija Institut, 31, p. 5-43.
Venedikov 1976 = 1. Venedikov, L’art thrace, Pulpudeva, 1, p. 49-55.
Venedikov, Gerasimov 1976 = I. Venedikov, T. Gerasimov, Sztuka tracka, cz. 1, Warszawa.
Venedikov, Gerasimov 1978 = I. Venedikov, T. Gerasimov, Sztuka tracka, cz. 2, Warszawa.
Venedikov 1996 = I. Venedikov, Trakijskoto sákrovište ot Letnica, Sofija.
Wolski 1996 = J. Wolski, Imperium Arsacydów, Poznań.
Zournatzi 2000 = A. Zournatzi, Inscribed Silver Vessels of the Odrysian Kongs: Gifts,
Tribute, and the Diffusion of the Forms o f “Achaemenid” M etalware in Thrace, American
Journal o f Archaeology, vol. 104, No 4, p. 683-706.
Elementy irańskie w sztuce trackiej
pierwszego tysiąclecia przed Chr.
Streszczenie
Tracja i Iran to terytoria dość odległe od siebie, znajdujące się na dwóch kontynentach.
W czasie gdy Trakowie na początku I tysiąclecia przed Chr. zamieszkiwali już północną część
Półwyspu Bałkańskiego, plemiona irańskie dopiero osiedliły się na peryferiach świata asyrobabilońskiego.
O
ile bliskie kontakty w pierwszej połowie I tysiąclecia przed Chr. pomiędzy Tracją
a A natolią, Scytią i Grecją nie podlegają żadnej dyskusji, to o kontaktach z ludami irańskimi
sprzed okresu wojen grecko-perskich, z archeologicznego punktu widzenia, niewiele możemy
powiedzieć. Na gruncie sztuki trackiej wskazywano jedynie n a fakt, że tak zwany styl zoomorficzny, który występował zarówno w sztuce trackiej, jak i scytyjskiej, swe analogie posiadał
także w M ezopotamii. D o dnia dzisiejszego literatura fachowa dotycząca kontaktów tracko-irańskich w dziedzinie sztuki nie jest jeszcze zbyt obfita, a poszczególne hipotezy stawiają
wiele znaków zapytania. M ożna jednak i należy się pokusić o wskazanie pewnych elementów
w sztuce irańskiej, które odnajdujemy również i w sztuce trackiej, co też stało się przedmiotem
niniejszego artykułu.
D la okresu przedachemenidzkiego szczególnie istotne są odkrycia dokonane w roku 1928
na terente Iranu w regionie Luristan. Znaleziono tam dużą liczbę brązowych przedmiotów,
które datuje się na pierwszą ćwierć I tysiąclecia przed Chr. Nie mniej ważne okazało się też
odkrycie niezwykle bogatego skarbu w miejscowości Ziwyć (irański K urdystan) zawierającego
wiele przedm iotów wykonanych ze złota, srebra oraz kości słoniowej. Zarów no brązy z Luristanu, jak też niektóre przedmioty ze skarbu z Ziwyć - jak się okazało - m ają swe bliższe lub
dalsze paralele w Tracji, co świadczy o istnieniu pewnej, dużej obszarowo, wspólnocie kulturowej, która obejmowała tereny pomiędzy Tracją a Iranem.
Związki tracko-irańskie na gruncie sztuki archeolodzy próbują rozpatrywać analizując
wybrane kategorie wytworów, typu: siekiery kultowe, aplikacje zoomorficzne pochodzące
z uprzęży końskiej, pektorały, rytony, aplikacje z tarcz z miejscowości Rozovec oraz Panagjuriszte, a także wskazując na pewne niewielkie podobieństwa, których można się doszukiwać
w architekturze sepulkralnej.
Reasumując rozważania dotyczące pewnych podobieństw (dokonanych na wybranych
przykładach) niektórych wytworów luksusowych, jak też związków w architekturze sepulkralnej
Iranu i Tracji, należy jednak na obecnym etapie badań zachować w wysuwaniu wniosków
daleko idącą ostrożność.
U
J '
5. Rhyton from Bashova mogila
i
6. Silver applique from Panagiurishte
7. Silver applique from Panagiurishte
*
i
8.
Ostrusha mogila
(Phot. Kitov, Agre 2002, s. 162)
9. The tomb of Cyrus the Great in Pasargadai
(Phot. Olbrycht 2004)
10. Xanthos, the place where once standed the Nereid Monument
(Phot. J. Hatlas)
11. Xanthos - Free-standing house tomb beside the Roman agora
(Phot. J. Hatlas)
12. Xanthos - Free-standing house tomb beside the Roman agora
(Phot. J. Hatlas)