Sir Augustus Woolastan Franks (1826-1897) 1 and another great Victorian antiquarian, Major General Sir Alexander Cunningham (1814-1893) 2 died several years apart and are buried a few hundred yards apart in Kensal Green Cemetery, London. It is significant that the graves of these people, who together preserved for posterity the Amu Darya treasure [known in English literature as The Treasure of the Oxus - The Treasure of the Oxus], were so close to each other.

The Amu Darya hoard contains gold and silver products and coins from the times of the Achaemenid Empire, the Seleucid and Greco-Bactrian kingdoms. This is the most significant collection of precious metal objects that has survived from that era, and today it is one of the greatest treasures of the British Museum.

The Amu Darya hoard contains about 180 gold and silver objects. Some of them show cleavage marks 3, probably dating back to the time after the discovery of the treasure. In addition, a large number of gold and silver coins are associated with the treasure. O. M. Dalton, an employee of the British Museum, who prepared an outstanding scientific catalog of the Amu Darya treasure, published in the first edition in 1905, claimed that "the coins that came to Europe with the treasure amounted to about one and a half thousand units" 4 , and this opinion was shared by the Russian scientist E. V. Zeymal, who prepared a catalog of the Amu Darya treasure for an exhibition in Leningrad in 1979.5 Now it is not possible to trace it.

1 August Woolasten Franks (Figure 1)worked for many decades as a curator in several departments of the British Museum. At the same time, he was an obsessive collector, collecting objects from different cultures - from Europe to Japan. He bequeathed his collections to the British Museum (Franks A. W. Nineteenth-Century Collecting and the British Museum / Ed. by M. Caygill and J. Cherry. E., 1997). For a special account of his activities in connection with the Amu Darya treasure, see Curtis J. Franks and the Oxus Treasure // Ibid. pp. 231-249.

2 General A. Cunningham (Figure 2) was an archaeological Inspector for the Government of India after retiring from military service, and later became the founder of the Archaeological Survey of India, serving as its Director General from 1870 to 1885. He personally carried out extensive archaeological work, including extremely important excavations, successfully engaged in numismatics and historical geography, and published many works.

Cunningham A. 3 Relics from Ancient Persia in Gold, Silver and Copper// JASB. 1881. V. L. P. 151, 155; idem. Relics from Ancient Persia in Gold, Silver and Copper: Second Notice // JASB. 1883. V. LII. P. 64; Dalton О.М. The Treasure of the Oxus with Other Examples of Early Oriental Metal- Work. 3 ed. L., 1964. p. 11.

4 This estimate is probably based on information contained in the writings of A. Cunningham; see Cunningham. Relics... P. 182. Not. 3; Idem. Relics... Second Notice. P. 64. Not. 3; idem. Relics from Ancient Persia in Gold, Silver and Copper: Third Notice // JASB. 1883. V. LII. P. 258.

5. Zeymal E. V. 5 Amudarya treasure trove. Exhibition Catalog, L., 1979, pp. 16-23. For a general review of the Amu Darya treasure, see: Barnett R. D. The Art of Bactria and the Treasure of the Oxus // Iranica Antiqua. 1968. VIII. p. 34-53; Caygill M. Treasures of the British Museum. L., 1985.p. 24-9; Mitchell T. C. The Oxus Treasure from the British Museum. London-Zurich, 1989; Curtis J.E. Ancient Persia. 2 ed. L., 2000. P. 60-65 (1 ed. - 1989. P. 51-55). For coins and further bibliography, see Schlumberger D. Les monnaies d'argent prehellenistiques du tresor de l'OXUS / / MDAFA. V. XIV. P., 1953. P. 46-49; Bellinger A. R. The Coins from the Treasure of the Oxus / / ANSMN. 1962. V. X. P. 51-67; Thopmson M., Morkholm O., Kgaau S. M. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, N.Y., 1973; Zeymal, E. V., The initial stage of monetary circulation in ancient Transoxiana, Srednaya Aziya, Kavkaz i zarubezhny Vostok v drevnosti / Edited by B. A. Litvinsky, Moscow: 61-80, 155-162.

page 14

the fate of most of these coins, but just over two hundred of those supposedly assigned to hoard 6 by E. V. Zeimal, are partly in the British Museum, and mostly in other museum collections, such as the State Hermitage Museum. These collections include copies originating from the Achaemenid royal mint and the territories surrounding the Persian Empire, as well as coins of the Seleucid rulers who succeeded Alexander the Great in the eastern part of the Hellenistic Empire.

The coins are important evidence for establishing the date of the Amu Darya hoard. According to A. Cunningham, the coins correspond to a period of about 300 years, counting from the time of Darius (521-486) to Antiochus III (the Great) (223-187) and Euthydemus I (c.230-200). A. Cunningham, based on the study of coins, concludes that the treasure was probably buried in the period c. 200-180 BC. 7 If this is so, then we can assume that the Amu Darya treasure was collected for 200-300 years, with the addition of the last items closer to the end of the third century BC. This brings us to the question of whether the Amu Darya treasure can really be considered a homogeneous archaeological complex. A. Cunningham clearly makes it clear that not all the treasure was found at the same time. In his first article, he says that "most, if not all, of the objects of the first discovery (i.e., 1877) became my property." 8 These subjects are the subject of A. Cunningham's first publication. In the same article, 9 A. Cunningham describes the great golden chariot 10 as "found last year", vol.E. in 1880. The impression that these objects were not all found at the same time is confirmed by a second publication by A. Cunningham, also devoted to the treasure, where he says: "since I wrote my previous report... several new items were discovered, as well as a large number of coins. "11 O. M. Dalton also held the view that the main part of the treasure was discovered in 1877, then" additional finds were added a year or two later. " 12 However, General D. D. Pierce, who had a small collection of materials that were supposedly associated with the Amu Darya treasure (see below), believed that it was discovered in 1876. There is also a report from the Central Asian merchant Wazi ad-din (given below), from which it may follow that all the material was discovered at the same time same time in 1877. But if it was completely found in 1877, then the question arises, where was the treasure that the merchants were carrying in the period between 1877 and 1880? It seems much more plausible that part of the treasure was found in 1880. In this case, the accuracy of Wazi al-Din's report should be called into question. It seems certain that the treasure was not found entirely and in one precisely defined place. A. Cunningham writes that "it was not found all in one place, but was scattered in the river sand" 13 . We don't have any additional information, but

6 Personal message of E. V. Zeymal.

Cunningham. 7 Relics... P. 151 f.; idem. Relics... Second Notice. P. 64; idem. Relics... Third Notice. P. 258. E. V. Zeymal agreed with this analysis. He believed that later coins, which are sometimes combined with the Amu Darya hoard, were probably added in modern times.

Cunningham. 8 Relics... P. 151.

9 Ibid. P. 154.

Dalton. 10 Op. cit. N7.

Cunningham. 11 Relics... Second Notice. P. 64.

Dalton. 12 Op. cit. P. XIII.

Cunningham. 13 Relics... P. 151-152.

page 15

1. Collector and antique dealer A. V. Franks

O. M. Dalton notes that when the treasure was found, a large golden head was covered with a golden bowl .14 Given these circumstances, we cannot without reservations and doubts treat the Amu Darya treasure as a closed archaeological complex, although most modern authors seem to believe that this is so and that all these objects actually form a single whole. There is an urgent need, however, to make a few cautious comments. First, it is quite possible that items of various origins were passed off as belonging to this hoard at the time they were sold in Rawalpindi (see below): thus, a large price could be demanded for them. This category probably includes the stone palette from Gandhara 15 (or, in any case, its golden version), which A. Cunningham initially considered to belong to the Amu Darya hoard16 . Then there's the problem of fakes. We know that at least three non-gold items were copied in gold 17 , and

Dalton. 14 Op. cit. P. 9.

15 Ibid N 197.

Cunningham. 16 Relics... Third Notice. P. 259 f. PI. XXI f.

17 Dalton (Op. cit. P. XVI) probably means that these three items were sent to A. W. Franks. He's writing: "There was much that was questionable about these items that aroused Sir A. W. Franks' suspicions, and apart from the fact that some of them are of types that are never found in gold execution. However, not wanting to lose a potentially important source of antiquities, he decided to make a purchase at a price slightly higher than the value of gold, and see how things would develop. They were not long in coming, and once the fakes were sold, the originals were delivered in their turn."

page 16

2. Archaeologist and numismatist A. Cunningham

Dalton talks about a copy of the gold statuette in the Franks Collection 18 . All of this was clearly done in Rawalpindi. There may have been other forgeries that have not yet been identified. In particular, some of the gold tablets are extremely rough, 19 and most likely are copies. The problem of homogeneity is also relevant in connection with coins. Clearly not agreeing with the view of the numismatist P. Gardner, 20 A. Cunningham firmly held the opinion that coins should be associated with the treasure. He wrote: "This opinion [i.e., P. Gardner's opinion], however, directly contradicts the reports of the collectors themselves, both made to Mr. Grant in 1877-1878, and what they do annually (from 1878 to the present) to myself. In particular, in letters from Hulme, I received grotirki of many of these coins as soon as they were purchased on Ox." Contrary to the claims of A. Cunningham, O. M. Dalton also expressed skepticism about the connection of coins with hoard 21 .

Of course, it is difficult to assess the reliability of numismatic information in this case, but it seems completely illogical to recognize the treasure itself as a complex and exclude coins at the same time. In these circumstances, and until we have new data, it seems reasonable to consider the Amu Darya hoard and its coins as a group of [archaeological] material, but not to forget the reservations expressed above .22 What was it then?

One possibility is that the hoard contained not only coins, but also items made of precious metals that were used in the exchange. Precious metals, both gold and silver, were extremely valuable in the ancient Near East as a medium of exchange. The metal had a purchasing power based on its weight and continued to be used as currency even after the war.

Dalton. 18 Op. cit. P. 2.

19 For example, ibid. N 63-64. On the other hand, there are indisputable forgeries made with great skill.

Gardner P. 20 Coins from Central Asia // NC. 2 Series. V. I. 1881. P. 8-12.

Dalton. 21 Op. cit. P. XVI.

22 Ср. Muscarella O.W. Excavated and Unexcavated Achaemenian Art // Ancient Persia: the Art of an Empire. / Ed. D. Schmandt- Besserat. Malibu, 1980. P. 26.

page 17

coin system approvals. The nature of the Amu Darya hoard, consisting of gold and silver objects (some of which were deformed), combined with a large number of coins, provides some arguments in favor of the identification proposed above. On the other hand, the golden plates seem to have had a votive character, i.e. they were placed in the temple to represent the believer in the face of the deity. The temple connection argument is further reinforced by the fact that many objects are images of priests. Accordingly, it is more plausible that we are dealing with a temple treasure, a collection of the most valuable items collected by the temple over a certain period of time and constituting its wealth.

Regarding the location of the treasure, researchers agreed that it was found north of the Oks River, in an area that was once part of ancient Bactria, and now modern Tajikistan (Figure 3). This must have happened between 1877 (or even 1876) and 1880. But the exact location remains questionable. The earliest mention of the discovery in the scientific literature was made by P. Gardner in 1879, who wrote "on new coins from Bactria". A number of these coins were later recorded by A. Cunningham as belonging to the Ox treasure .23 Quoting A. Grant, the chief engineer and director of the Indian Railways, who purchased some of these coins in Rawalpindi, P. Gardner claimed that the coins were discovered "eight passages beyond the Ox, in an old fort, on a strip of land formed by two connecting rivers." 24 He calls it a "find from the Oks" 25 . Even here, a problem arises due to the fact that there is no identifiable confluence of two rivers in eight crossings north of the Oks. However, in his first report on the treasure, A. Cunningham quite unequivocally says that the treasure was discovered "in 1877 on the northern bank of the Oxus, near the settlement of Takhti Kuvat... The place is also called Kavat or Kavadian, and I have no doubt that it is Kobadian." He adds that "it [the treasure] was not found all in one place, but was scattered in the river sand. From this we can conclude that it was hidden near the shore either in wooden boxes or in clay vessels, which fell apart when the swollen river current cut the bank and scattered their contents on the sand. " 26

Two years later, A. Cunningham confirmed these details when he wrote that "the site of the discovery of these relics is located on the banks of the Oxus, not far from the place called Kavat or Kuad. This place is one of the busiest crossings on the Oks and has always been one of the main sections on the road to Samarkand. " 27 In the same year, with the appearance of a new note, some confusion arises. A. Cunningham writes that "this place is located at a distance of one transition to the north of the Oxus and is called Cavadian... The assumption that I made in my first report on these remains, which was that the site of the discovery was the ancient city of Kobadian of Arab geographers, turned out to be correct. " 28 The difficulty that arises from this last statement is that Kobadian is located 50 km north of the Oxus, and all other data clearly indicate that the treasure was found on the banks of the Oxus. This is supported by reports of the time in periodicals such as The Graphic 29 and Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 30 .

Cunningham. 23 Relics... P. 169-182.

Gardner P. 24 New Coins from Bactria // NC, New Series. 1879. V. XIX. P. 1.

25 Ibid. P. 3, 9.

Cunningham. 26 Relics... P. 151-152.

Idem. 27 Relics... Second Notice. P. 64.

Idem. 28 Relics... Third Notice. P. 260.

Birdwood G. 29 Indian Jewelry // The Graphic. 26 November 1881. P. 538.

Franks A.W. 30 Exhibition of a Remarkable Gold Armlet // Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries. 2 series. V. 9. L., 1883. P. 250.

page 18

Figure 3. Map of Central Asia and adjacent regions

General J. J. Pierce, the owner of some of the items, wrote that " for almost 2000 years, the Ox hoard remained in its water-sand bed. Around 1876, the land slid down from the riverbank, revealing the innumerable riches of the ancient treasure. " 31 Finally, records in the Victoria and Albert Museum relating to a gold bracelet acquired by the museum (see below) state that it was "found on the banks of the Oxus during the Afghan Campaign of 1879-80."

31 This is published in a printed leaflet entitled "The Great Trouvaille of the River Oxus of A.D. 1876", containing a register of items belonging to the Pier (Victoria and Albert Museum archives).

page 19

Russian sources cited by E. V. Zeymal in his catalog of the Amu Darya hoard32 support A. Cunningham's initial statement that the hoard was found in Takhti Kuvad. This area was visited in 1879 by the Russian geographer N. A. Mayev. He tells how, while waiting for the crossing, his mission visited the ruins of Takhti Kuvad and, with the help of local workers, conducted excavations for one day. N. A. Mayev describes the location of Takhti Kuvad (at the confluence of the Vakhsh and Panj rivers) and reports that local residents told him about the tiger made of solid gold and other gold objects which were found there and sold to Indian merchants for a high price. Ten years later, the Russian officer N. N. Pokotilo wrote about Takhti Kuvad: "Despite the desolation of the place, several dozen people are constantly digging there, looking for treasures; according to legend, some native dug up a golden idol there as tall as a man." This further confirms that Takhti Kuvad ("throne of Kavad") is located on the northern bank of the Oks River (Amu Darya) near the place where the Vakhsh and Panj Rivers merge, forming the Amu Darya proper. It is about 50 km south of the modern settlement of Kobadiana, now in the territory of Tajikistan 33 . Before the Soviet period, when the border was closed, there was an important crossing over the Oks River. This area was still wild; at least until the 1950s, tigers lived there, and even now there are wild boars and deer. There are many signs of earthworks here, including those carried out by border guards in recent decades .34 Takhti Kuvad is located 5-6 km south of another important fortified settlement, Takhti Sangin ("stone throne").

This place is now well known thanks to the sensational discoveries made here by the South Tajik Archaeological Expedition (expedition leader B. A. Litvinsky, team leader I. R. Pichikyan), which worked on Takhti Sangin in 1975-1990.

Takhti Sangin (Fig. 4) 35 is protected from the north and south by walls that are separated from each other by a distance of one kilometer. And it was on the citadel, located in the center of this city, that Russian archaeologists found an important temple. In the temple there was a four-columned hall, in front of which there was an eight-columned portico. It is believed that it was a temple of fire, where the sacred fire was constantly maintained. It is assumed that the temple was built around 300 BC. This date is well established, as the columns were surmounted by Greek Ionic capitals, which show close parallels with Asia Minor, such as the temple of Pallas Athena at Priene and the temple of Artemis-Cybele at Sardis, built in the same period. 36 The long L-shaped corridors were filled with items that were brought to the temple and stored there. During the excavations, about 8,000 objects were discovered. Among these exceptionally rich finds were coins, weapons, alabaster and clay sculptures, and precious objects made of gold, silver, and ivory. This collection of valuable items appears to date from a wide chronological range. Among the earliest products - a scabbard for ko-

Zaimal. 32 The Amu Darya treasure... 1979. p. 14. See also Pichikiyan I. R. Oxos-Schatz und Oxos-Tempel. V., 1992. P. 65 f.

33 This locality was renamed several times during the Soviet era (Mikoyanabad, Nasiri Khisrov).

34 B. A. Litvinsky's personal message.

35 For archaeological reports on excavations and finds at Takhti Sangin, see Litvinsky V. A., Pichikijan I. R. The Temple of the Oxus / / JRAS. 1981. N 2. P. 133-167; iidem. Monuments of Art from the Sanctuary of Oxus (Northern Bactria) // AAASH. V. XXVIH. N 1-4. 1983. P. 25-83; Piclukiyan. Oxos-Schatz...; Litvinsky B.A., Pichikian I.R. The Hellenistic Architecture and Art of the Temple of the Oxus // The Archaeology and Art of Central Asia. Studies from Former Soviet Union / Ed. B.A. Litvinsky, C.A. Bromberg. Michigan, 1996 (Bulletin of the Asia Institute, N.S. V. 8). P. 47-66.

Litvinsky B.A., Pichikian I.R. 36 The Ionic Capital from the Temple of the Oxus (Northern Bactria) // Iranica Antiqua. V. XXXIII. Gent, 1998. P. 233- 258.

page 20

a rare sword (akinaka) made of ivory with the image of a lion standing on its hind legs and holding a deer in its front paws. The piece is dated by archaeologists who excavated it to the fifth century B.C. 37 Among the most recent finds is a bronze figure of Silenus, which is surmounted by a limestone altar and which has a Greek dedicatory inscription to Oxus; it presumably dates from the middle of the second century B.C. 38

An alabaster figurine depicting a male figure wearing a belted chiton and trousers 39 reflects the Parthian style and probably dates from the first century AD. These are just a few examples, but they demonstrate that the material stored in Takhti Sangin dates from the fifth century BC to at least the first century AD. This means that the functioning of the temple should have continued until then, and possibly even later.

How do Takhti Sangin and Takhti Kuwad relate to each other? Archaeologists who excavated the temple are quite sure that the Amu Darya treasure was found near Takhti Sangin, and believe that it must come from the treasures of the temple of fire. Other scientists are more cautious 40 . In favor of the Litvinsky - Pichikyan theory is the fact that in the XIX century. the entire area near the confluence of the Panja and Vakhsha Rivers was known as Takhti Kuvad,

4. Takhti-Sangin ancient settlement with the Oks Temple (according to B. A. Litvinsky - I. V. Pichikyan)

Iidem. 37 The Temple... P. 152; iidem. Monuments... P. 49.

Iidem. 38 The Temple... P. 154; iidem. Monuments... P. 63; iidem. An Akinak Scabbard from Bactria // Soviet Archeology and Anthropology. Journal of Translation. V. 21/1-2. N.Y., 1982. P. 139-182. Fig. 3-6.

Iidem. 39 Monuments... P. 66-67. Fig. 8.

Zeymal T. I., Zeymal E. V. 40 Once again about the place of finds of the Amu Darya treasure / / ION of the Academy of Sciences of the Tajik SSR. Issue 1 (28). 1962 (the authors prove that the Amu Darya treasure was found on Takhti Kuvad); Jettmar K. Oxus-Schatz und Heiligtum von Tachti Sangin / / OXUS. 2000 Jahre Kunst am Oxus-Fluss in Mittelasien. Neue Funde aus der Sowjetrepublik Tadschikistan. Zurich, 1989. S. 171.

page 21

getting its name from a ledge on the Teshik-Tash mountain range located here. The name Takhti Sangin is relatively modern, in any case, the first attested mention of it in the press belongs to our contemporaries: when B. A. Litvinsky and I. R. Pichikyan visited the ancient settlement, they asked the surrounding residents about the name of the area and were informed that it was called Takhti Sangin 41 . This theory is also supported by the fact that three gold plates 42 were found in Takhti Sangin , which are largely comparable to about 50 specimens from the Amu Darya hoard. One of the plates found on Takhti Sangin is devoid of decoration and was once bent, like many specimens from the Amu Darya treasure, on the other-the image of a winged creature, and on the third, inlaid and thus slightly different from the plates of the Amu Darya treasure, a man and a camel are depicted.

Litvinsky and Pichikyan's opinion is contradicted by the fact that the supposed specific location of the discovery of the Oks Treasure should have been located [directly] on the banks of the Oks (see above). The citadel of Takhti Sangin is certainly not located on the river bank and is not less than 0.5 km away from it .43 Accordingly, there is no possibility that items from the Takhti Sangin temple could have ended up in the river sand. If the items of the Amu Darya hoard were indeed originally located in the temple, they must have been moved to another place in ancient times. There are also problems with dating. We assumed that the Amu Darya hoard chronologically corresponds to the period from about the VI century BC to the beginning of the II century BC, while the finds from the Takhti Sangin temple date back to a later time, at least to the first century AD.

In favor of this theory, the researchers of the temple put forward, as B. A. Litvinsky kindly informed me, the following hypothesis, which clarifies a lot. Among several thousand finds (including a whole collection of works of art) in the temple, there is practically not a single large object made of precious metals, only a few small items. Given the importance of the temple as a general Bactrian sanctuary, this can only be explained by the fact that at some stage, when enemies approached the temple (perhaps Yuezhi nomads in the second century BC), the priests collected all the large items of gold and silver and secretly buried them on the riverbank. As fate would have it, they were not destined to return all this to the vaults of the temple that continued to function, and the river washed away this place of the bank after two thousand years.

However, this is only a hypothesis. It seems reasonable to refrain from making a final judgment for the time being. An extensive comprehensive archaeological survey of the entire area and possibly further excavations at Takhti Sangin and Takhti Kuvad will help resolve this issue.

After the Amu Darya hoard was discovered, it eventually made its way to Rawalpindi, apparently in parts and at different times. Pakistan). O. M. Dalton reports that "... there is ample evidence that the treasure was actually transported from the Oxa Valley to Kabul and then to Peshawar, where it was sold. " 44 However, it is clear from his account that most of the items ended up in Rawalpindi, about 90 miles further east from Peshawar. P. Gardner also tells us that some of the coins from the hoard were delivered to

41 B. A. Litvinsky's personal message.

Litvinsky B. A., Pichikian I. R. 42 Golden Plaques from the Oxus Temple (Northern Bactria) // VDI. 1992. N 3. pp. 94-11 (=Litvinsky B. A., Pichikian I. R. Gold Plaques from the Oxus Temple (Northern Bactria) / / Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia. V. 2/2. Leiden, 1995).

43 B. A. Litvinsky's lecture at the British Museum 26 July 1995 This is also clear from the photo published in: Litvinskij B. A., Pichikian I. R. An Achaemenian Griffin Handle from the Temple of the Oxus / / In the Land of the Gryphons: Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity / Ed. A. Invernizzi. Flirenze, 1995. Fig. 1.

Dalton. 44 Op. cit. P. XIII.

page 22

Rawalpindi in the winter of 1877-1878. 45 This may well have been a large part of the Amu Darya treasure, which underwent a dramatic adventure. O. M. Dalton left us a colorful account of what happened. He reports that "three merchants from Bukhara, who were in the habit of trading between Khiva, Samarkand, and India," bought the treasure in the hope that it, when sewn up in sacks, might be considered a commodity and not money, and consequently would not be subject to the duty that they would otherwise have to pay Abdurrahman 46 on its way through Afghanistan. This was in May 1880, between Kabul and Peshawar, these merchants, being at a distance from their convoy, were robbed "by people from Khurd Kabul, belonging to the Gilzai tribes of Barbakar Khel and Hisarak. The robbers went with the loot to the mountains, taking with them three merchants and their servant... they reached a place called Carcaccia, where there were several caves in which they hoped to safely share the loot." This was not to be, however, for the servant escaped and arrived at Captain Francis Barton's camp at nine o'clock in the evening 47, a British soldier who was the chief State inspector of the Khurd Kabul region (Gilzai district). With these powers, he was based in Sebaba, 35 km east of Kabul, and his task was to keep open the lines of communication between Kabul and British India during the British occupation of Kabul in the Second Afghan War, and then during the withdrawal of troops. As soon as F. Barton received news of the crime and, according to O. M. Dalton, went out with two orderlies and caught up with the robbers in the cave shortly before midnight. They were sharing the loot, and they had already quarreled over it. Four of them lay wounded. We are informed that "negotiations followed", as a result of which part of the treasure was given to F. Barton. He threatened the robbers to bring a whole squad the next day, which convinced them to return most of the treasure they had left. As a result, about three-quarters were returned to the merchants. Immediately after the incident, one of the merchants gave the following statements, which, according to O. M. Dalton, "are interesting enough to give them almost completely." Here is an excerpt:

"I am one of the merchants who were robbed when the Ghilzai of Hisarak and Jagdalak attacked us and seized all our possessions. No mules were taken, but the packs on the mules were cut up and stolen. They contained gold and silver ornaments, several golden bowls, a silver idol, a golden idol, and a large piece of jewelry that resembled an anklet. Most of these items were found in Khandian (Kabadian). The place is under the water of the Oxus, but at a certain time several times a year, when the river dries up, people dig and find valuable gold items among the old ruins of the city of Handian. My companions and I bought these things ourselves, fearing to carry the money, since Abdarrahman was in Kunduz and took a toll on all travelers and merchants for his army. We were told that the idol and anklet date back to the time of Alexander the Great and were found at the same time as

45 Ibid. P. XIII-XV.

46 Abdurrahman Khan, Emir of Afghanistan (1880-1901).

47 Colonel Francis Charles Barton (1845-1931) (Figure 5). He began his military career in a British regiment and was posted to India in 1866. In 1869, he joined the 1st Bengal Rifles (Skinner's Horse). During the Second Afghan War (1878-1880), he commanded the Punjab Battalion under Lord Roberts before briefly becoming a government official. He finished his career as Commander of the 2nd Bengal Rifles (Gardener's Horse) and retired in 1901. In India, Barton and his wife were enthusiastic performers in amateur theater productions and were close friends of Rudyard Kipling. Barton's wife appears in a number of Kipling's short stories as the abominable "Mrs. Hoxby". After the First World War, he chose Tunbridge Wells as his residence. Barton's obituaries can be found in The Tunbridge Wells Advertiser of March 13, 1931 (p. 13) and The Kent and Sussex Courier of March 13, 1931 (p. 2). The search for more information about Barton's life and career was greatly assisted by C. Angel and G. Barton. Copas, residents of Tunbridge Wells, who are now conducting their own research on this interesting person.

page 23

A piece of jewelry that I heard was sent to India by Burra Lord Sahib. The total price of the treasure was eighty thousand rupees, and thanks to your influence, we returned fifty-two thousand. I would like you to buy a gold anklet. After the silver idol was stolen, it was set on fire, and some of the silver was melted. I can say no more about these things; I here confirm that I received them back from you."

Unfortunately, the origin of these readings cannot be traced, and the source of O. M. Dalton's information is unknown. It is possible that he met F. Barton and received a first-hand report from him, as well as a written statement from the merchant, or it is possible that this information was contained in papers that once belonged to A. W. Franks. The loss of the statement itself is particularly unfortunate, as it raises a number of questions. Was the merchant literate, and if so, what language did he write in? If he wrote it himself, who translated it and when? Or was it an oral statement that was translated into English and put on paper at F. Barton's camp, signed by a merchant? All this is possible, since it is known that F. Barton was a real expert on languages. Thus, in 1877, he was invited to India to translate the Cavalry Service Regulations into Hindi and Urdu. [48] According to his "Record of Service", he also passed the Miratha Persian Language Exam on October 3, 1887. [49] These details may seem private, but they take on a certain significance when it turns out that he was not a member of the British Army. that other reports of the time did not quite agree with O. M. Dalton's account and the merchant's statement.

Another important source on this incident is the Lahore Civil and Military Gazette of June 24, 1880, which reports the following.

"A group of Kokand people arrived in Kabul on their way to India, carrying gold coins in the amount of 50,000 or 60,000 rupees, the property of Bukhara merchants. During their stay in Kabul, the Kokand men made no secret of their possession of so much gold, and it was there that their robbery was planned. Initially, the bandits intended to" release " the owners from their cargo between Buthak and Lattaband on the 10th of the current month [i.e., June. - D. K.], but when they learned that the Kokand caravan was accompanied by a large escort, they decided to seize the treasure the next day near Dzigdallik. For this purpose, 180 people gathered, who lay down by the roadside in a low bush that hid them, where they waited until the convoy approached. Then they rushed into the midst of the metropolitan and local convoys, which were now close together, and seized the very mule that was carrying the gold, and immediately stole it; they released the other pack animals to contribute to the general confusion. The news of the robbery reached Sebab at four o'clock, and Captain F. Barton, the state inspector, immediately sent men on the trail; his knowledge of this part of the country enabled him to make a shrewd guess as to the whereabouts of the robbers. He also took steps from the very beginning to arrest a karavanbashi in Buthak, whose involvement in the robbery he suspected. At first, he was going to surround the village, from which, as F. believed, Barton, there were kidnappers; but after some reflection, he decided to do some work through his employees, and with the help of Sardar Jang, a former local Bengal Cavalry officer, he succeeded in this task. Having overcome the difficulties, F. Barton managed to save gold in the amount of 21,000 gold rupees, and we can hope that even more will be returned."

There is additional information, although very cursory, in the" Service record " of F. Barton, where in the column "Special service in peacetime and in war" it is written that F. Barton is a military officer. Barton "returned the stolen treasure taken from kafil." "caravan"] of Central Asian and Samarkand merchants worth more than 60,000 rupees."

48 Letter of August 27, 1877 in the personal archive of F. Barton. The latter was kindly shown to me by Mrs. Susan Eastmond, Barton's great-granddaughter.

49 Barton's personal archive.

page 24

Figure 5. Colonel F. C. Barton

There are slight discrepancies between these accounts, particularly between the story by O. M. Dalton and the report in the Lahore Gazette. But these differences are not so great as to raise doubts about the main events of this episode, namely, that a caravan of merchants from Kokand, Bukhara, and Samarkand was ambushed between Sebaba and Jagdalak, and that, thanks to the efforts and initiative of Captain F. Barton, the kidnappers were overtaken and the treasure returned to the merchants.

Apparently, F. Barton saw one of the massive gold bracelets, which was in a cut-up bale, and offered to buy it for 50 . The merchants agreed, and apparently to show that he had come into his possession in a perfectly normal and legal manner, F. Barton obtained the consent of one of the merchants to give the testimony given above. Given that there was a large amount of money involved, F. Barton wanted to demonstrate that his behavior was impeccable. In addition, it was necessary for him to confirm ownership of the anklet and avoid any possible charges of abuse. An article in The Graphic 51 reported: "The English officer who bought it [the bracelet] did not have the money to buy the idols found with it as well." In June 1884, F. Barton delivered his bracelet to the South Kensington Museum.

Dalton. 50 Op. cit. P. XIV.

Birdwood. 51 Op. cit. P. 538.

page 25

It is clear from the entry in the museum's "Protocol Book" that he did not want to leave it for temporary use, but was interested in selling it . The asking price was 1000 pounds sterling. The transaction was described on July 11, 1884, by the museum's secretary, Colonel D. F. D. Donnelly: 53 " I saw Major F. Barton, who was here on a visit... this morning. I said that the museum managers would like to have a bracelet, but the amount was too large. I had to ask if this is the final price. He assured me that this was the case, stating that he had already been offered so much. Although he was inclined to allow us to postpone the payment until April 1 of the following year, if we agreed to buy it, he did not seem to like the idea of leaving the bracelet for temporary use. After putting all this to Sir P. K. Owen, I agreed with him that we had better pay at once."

The museum's accounting department was instructed to pay "as quickly as possible, as he [Barton] is leaving England in two or three days." 54

Why F. Barton proposed the bracelet to the South Kensington, rather than the British Museum, is not exactly known, but at that time it could be considered that an object of this type, due to its, though not quite definite, ties with India, falls within the competence of the South Kensington Museum. Eventually, the bracelet was published in The Graphic in 1881 under the headline "Indian Jewelry." 55 Or maybe the reason was just that F. Barton was then living at 5 Empervris Gate, South Kensington, and was more comfortable dealing with the nearby South Kensington Museum. Another question is why this museum was willing to pay a very high price at that time in order to acquire" for the state " 56 bracelets, the paired item of which was already, as we will see, in the possession of A. W. Franks. Surely it could not have been assumed even then that A. W. Franks would eventually bequeath his collection to the British Museum? Or was it just that if the British Museum was supposedly going to get one item, then the South Kensington Museum wanted one of its own?

After the treasure was returned to the merchants thanks to F. Barton, they continued their journey to Peshawar and eventually sold it in Rawalpindi. It was eventually purchased from merchants by General Sir Alexander Cunningham and A.V. Franks. A. Cunningham, who was then Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India, relates that with the exception of a small golden chariot and a golden figure of a horseman , 57 which was presented to Lord E. R. Lytton by Sir L. Cavagliari , 59 he purchased most of the items in the collection. items (if not all) of the first find in 1877. In fact, this is unlikely to be the case, since there are eight gold or silver items, as well as ten coins supposedly related to Amu-

52 I thank Dr. F. Glenvilli and Y. Shepad, who provided valuable information from the archives of the Albert and Victoria Museum. Barton's opinion is made clear in a letter dated July 28, 1884, to the secretary of the South Kensington Museum. He's writing: "I regret that I cannot leave the piece of jewelry for the exhibition, as I will be returning to India soon. I want to sell it, and before offering it to any private or foreign museum, I think it's right to give priority to my country."

53 Major General D. F. D. Donnelly (1834-1902) was Secretary of the Department of Science and Art at the South Kensington Museum from 1884-1889, see Who Was Who (1897-1915). 6th ed. L., 1988. P. 148.

Birdwood. 54 Op. cit.

55 The bracelet has the registration number 442-84.

56 Sir R. K. Owen wrote in the Record Book of the South Kensington Museum (July 3, 1884): "There can be no doubt that it should be purchased for the state at the price of £ 1,000."

57 Both the small chariot and the figure of the horseman are now in the British Museum. The chariot was purchased from Lady Cobbold, Lord Lytton's granddaughter, in 1953, and the horseman figurine was purchased from the 2nd Earl of Lytton in 1931.

58 Edward Robert Bulwer-Lytton I, Earl of Lytton (1831-1891), Viceroy of India (1876-1880).

59 Sir Pierre Louis Napoleon Cavallari (1841-1879) was a military and government inspector. He was appointed British resident in Kabul from 24 July 1879, but in September 1879 he and the entire delegation were killed in an uprising there.

page 26

The Darya hoard, which General D. D. Pearce 60 gave to the South Kensington Museum in 1899, was found "around 1876". O. M. Dalton refers to figurines in Berlin and in a private collection 61 . Be that as it may, it is the objects from the 1877 find that are the subject of A. Cunningham's first report on the treasure in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. These include 62 pieces: two larger silver figurines, a horse figure and a figure with a crown carved in gold, the best of the gold plates with the image of a supposedly priest holding a leopard (Figure 6), a golden fish, two golden deer figures, a fragmented golden horse head, parts of six gold twisted hryvnias (or bracelets), two gold rings, a small gold plate with the image of a man and a lion, and a small gold figure of a bird. All these items were supposed to be in the collection of A. Cunningham and are now in the British Museum 63 . In addition to coins, there were several items whose current location is unknown .64 This is a gold plate with images of a winged bull (probably not authentic), a gold medallion with the head of Dionysus, a small gold "dove", two spiral gold hryvnia with snake heads, two gold earrings depicting Eros, and parts of two gold bracelets.

Two years later, A. Cunningham writes that since his previous report, "several new items have been discovered, as well as a large number of coins." 65 In this note, A. Cunningham gives illustrations 66 with images of a small figure of a priest made of solid gold, a gold ring and three twisted bracelets, which are now considered part of the Amu Darya treasure 67 and probably were his property at that time. The current location of two more bracelets and a gold ring of dubious authenticity is still unknown, but it is noteworthy that these two bracelets are really very similar to the specimens that are now in the museum.

6. The Amu Darya treasure trove. Gold plate with the image of a character with a leopard. The British Museum

60 The entire military career of General George J. Smith He offered his collection to the South Kensington Museum for £ 1,000, but the offer was not accepted, and in 1908 his widow instructed the museum to send the items to J. H. Marshall at the Calcutta Museum in India.

Dalton. 61 Op. cit. P. 2.

Cunningham. 62 Relics....

63 Ibid. PI. XI, /; XII, 1-2. 8 (part); XIII, 3-4; XIV; XV, 2, 4- 8 ; XVI, 6-7 , 9-12.

64 Ibid. PI. XV, 1, 3; XVI, 1-5, 8. A bracelet with an end decoration in the form of lion heads in Fig. XVI, 8 is very similar to the one given in the book: Dalton. Op. cit. N 120, but it's obviously not the same item. The Golden Ring (Cunningham. Relics... PI. XVII, 6; cf. Dalton. Op. cit. N 105) was, as A. Cunningham informs us, a reproduction of the subject from the article: Franks A. W. Exhibition of Three Finger-rings and Stone Seal / / Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries. 2 series. V. VIII. L., 1880. Fig. 1.

Cunningham. 65 Relics... Second Notice. P. 64.

66 Ibid. PI. VI A, C; VII, 3-5. The gold bracelet in Table VII, 5 is clearly the same as the one reproduced in the article: Cunningham. Relics... PI. XVI, 12-19 (Dalton. Op. cit. N 119).

Dalton. 67 Op. cit. N 2a, 110, 119, 122, 139.

Cunningham. 68 Relics... Second Notice. Op. cit. PI. VI B, VII, 1-2.

page 27

part of the Amu Darya treasure 69 . It is interesting that in this article we first come across evidence that some items of the treasure were copied, possibly in Rawalpindi. So, the umbon with the hunting scene 70 is a copy in gold of the silver original, now stored in the British Museum 71 . Three more forgeries were published by A. Cunningham later, in 1883. According to him, " since writing my second note about very curious and interesting discoveries... On the north bank of the Oxus, I purchased three more gold ornaments and more than twenty coins minted from various metals. " 72 These items 73 are a chalcedony cylinder seal reproduced in gold, a silver handle in the shape of a wild goat, and a Gandharic stone disk depicting a man sitting astride a lion with a scaly tail, which may not have been part of the treasure 74 .

Reproductions were also made at the request of A. Cunningham himself, but not for the purpose of making forgeries. At the time of purchase, many of the bracelets were presented with their own end ornaments, and the metal hoops were cut off for melting. A. Cunningham told about one such case, namely, when he restored a spiral gold bracelet with end ornaments in the form of lion heads with the help of a jeweler in Simla 75 .

The above items, therefore, were in the possession of A. Cunningham. Since the descriptions are completely accurate, and he published even small and relatively insignificant items, it is not without reason that we have given a complete list of what he owned above. It follows that the remainder of what is now part of the Amu Darya hoard in the British Museum must have been acquired by A. W. Franks either independently or through dealers in Northwest India. This seems to be a reasonable assumption, but, unfortunately, there are no documents that could confirm it. We have, however, information about several items. Thus, A. Cunningham reports 76 that a spectacular golden chariot with a driver, rider and four horses was sent to England after it was found and sold (presumably to A. W. Franks) for 120 pounds sterling. Cunningham adds that he was "not even allowed to look at her." Then, on May 27, 1880, A. W. Franks displays a gold ring with a winged bull and an engraved Aramaic inscription 77 at the Society of Antiquaries. We know that by February 22, 1883, one of the massive bracelets with end ornaments in the form of griffins (Figure 7) became his property, since on that day he exhibited it in the Society of Antiquaries. 78 A little later, at the time when one gold bracelet was being purchased by the South Kensington Museum, Sir R. S. Owen wrote (July 3, 1884): "A duplicate (of this product. - D. K.) was in the private collection of G. Franks, who personally gave 3,000 pounds for the bracelet and other gold items from the same source. " 79 There are a number of other items that O. M. Dalton described in his catalog as having been purchased in Rawalpindi 80 . With a high probability, you can pre --

Dalton. 69 Op. cit. N 118, 140.

Cunningham. 70 Relics... Second Notice. Op. cit. PI. VI D.

Dalton. 71 Op. cit. N 24.

Cunningham. 72 Relics... P. 258.

73 Ibid. PI. XXI A, F-G.

Dalton. 74 Op. cit. N 10, 114, 197.

Cunningham. 75 Relics... P. 156. PI. XVI, 7; Dalton. Op. cit. N 125.

Cunningham. 76 Relics... P. 154, 183.

Franks. 77 Exhibition of Three...

Franks. 78 Exhibition of a Remarkable...

79 Victoria and Albert Museum Minutes Book for 1884 (manuscript). The Victoria and Albert Museum record book also states: "The paired object and other objects found at the same time are in the possession of Mr. A. W. Franks."

Dalton. 80 Op. cit. N 101-102, 106, 109.

page 28

7. The Amu Darya treasure trove. Gold bracelet with griffins

It is believed that they were in the collection of A. W. Franks. There is no information about the rest of the material now included in the Amu Darya hoard, which is quite surprising, given the great interest that some of these items, which are distinguished by excellent quality, aroused, such as the golden akinak scabbard, a golden jug with a handle ending with a lion's head, a lot of gold plates, etc. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that all this material was in the collection of A. W. Franks, undoubtedly by 1887, and possibly by 1883.

At one time, A.V. Franks added to his already solid collection of items from the Amu Darya hoard with the purchase of the A. Cunningham collection. In the" Apology " 81 of his life, A.W. Franks writes that " groups of exceptional objects, mostly votive, found in the Ox River... either sent to me directly from India, or purchased by me from Sir Alexander Cunningham." Unfortunately, there are few documents related to this transaction, but one letter has been preserved. On January 12, 1887, A. Cunningham writes to A. W. Franks that General D. D. Pearce asks him to offer the British Museum two ancient objects for sale - an Egyptian tablet and a jade hunting scene from India.: "I have a few things of my own that I would like to donate to the Museum - and others that I should offer for sale. The first group consists of all my finds from Bhils, the second-ancient objects from Oxus." He concluded by saying that he was currently unable to leave the house due to bronchitis and would like to speak to A. W. Franks when the weather improved. Whether the purchase was actually discussed (and rejected) by the trustees of the British Museum, or whether A. W. Franks wanted to make the purchase himself from the very beginning, remains unknown. In our time, to the intention of the curator of the museum, and A.V. Franks had been one of them, and buying such an important collection for himself would probably have been frowned upon, but it didn't seem to have attracted any negative comments at the time. Colleagues may well have assumed that A.V. Franks would eventually donate the collection to the museum, and this is indicated by a letter from A.V. Franks dated June 6

Franks A.W. 81 Apology // A.W. Franks. Nineteenth Century Collecting... P. 325.

page 29

1893 to the chief librarian M. Thompson, where, speaking of a group of ancient vessels, he writes:" From this series I intend to make part of the museum collection, but I would like to retain the right to keep them as a reward for the gift " 82 . It is not known exactly when A. W. Franks bought the part of the Amu Darya treasure that belonged to A. Cunningham; it was offered to the British Museum in January 1887, and we only know that it was in the possession of A. Franks in 1883, when he wrote the Apology .83 Nor do we know how much he paid for it. The key, however, may be found in A. Cunningham's statement in 1881 that "the entire hoard, including objects and coins, should be worth 750 pounds sterling at face value." 84 How much A. W. Franks would have been willing to pay in excess of that initial price is not known, and it is hardly worth guessing. But what we do know is that A. Cunningham used to give things away for the same price that he paid for them himself . There is no doubt that these prices are recorded in the detailed notebooks kept by A. Cunningham and which were lost along with the steamer "Hindu", which sank off the coast of Ceylon in 1885. 86

After the death of A. W. Franks in 1897, it became clear that the Amu Darya treasure, along with other important collections, was bequeathed to the British Museum. In addition to the Amu Darya treasure, the volume contained data on "other objects from ancient Persia and India." 87

Thus ended the long and difficult journey of the Amu Darya treasure from the banks of the Ox to the banks of the Thames, to the British Museum*.

THE TREASURE OF THE OXUS ON ITS WAY TO THE BRITISH MUSEUM

G. Curtis

The article describes the circumstances of the discovery of the Amu Darya hoard, attracting English and Russian publications. The author is sure that the hoard comes from the lower reaches of the river Vachs where it falls into the Pendz. He also discusses the question of the hoard's homogeneity and the hypothesis by Litvinsky and Pichikian that it was a part of the treasury of the Oxus' Temple hidden by the priests because of the threatening invasion.

The second part of the article tells how the hoard was brought to the town of Ravalpindi (now in Pakistan) by some Asian merchants. New documents from museums, private collections and newspapers are used here. New light is thrown upon the dramatic journey of the caravan which transported the hoard.

Lastly, the author tells how the objects from the hoard were bought by British scholars and collectors and came to the British Museum.

Cunningham. 82 Relics... P. 183.

Franks. 83 Apology. P. 325.

Cunningham. 84 Relics... P. 183.

85 Dictionary of National Biography, Supplement I. V. 2. Oxf., 1901. P. 94-96.

86 Ibid. I have not included in this article some of the data that I was able to extract from the materials of A. W. Franks, stored in the Department of Oriental Antiquities and in the Department of Medieval and Oriental Antiquities of the British Museum (see Curtis. Franks... P. 245-246).

Dalton О.М. 87 Franks' Bequest; the Treasure of the Oxus with Other Objects from Ancient Persia and India. L., 1905. The second edition of this catalog was published in 1926, the third-in 1964. On the activities and works of O. M. Dalton, see Hill G. Ormonde Maddock Dalton (1866-1945) / / Proceedings of the British Academy. V. XXXI. L., 1946.

* Translated by I. D. Djibladze.

Permanent link to this publication: