The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

The fate of the Buddhism in Merv (about some arguments in a discussion)



 © 2013

the FATE of the BUDDHISM IN MERV (About SOME ARGUMENTS IN the DISCUSSION)

Article is devoted by G.A. Koshelenko's to Buddhism history problems in Margiana (Mervsky oasis) in Parthian and sasanidsky time. Article has historiographic character. The author estimates degree of substantiality of various points of view and resolutely objects to hyper critical approach to a problem about time of emergence of the Buddhism in this region.

the Author devotes this article to anniversary of the outstanding scientist Vladimir Aronovich Livshits who made very much for knowledge of the past of the people of Central Azii1.

During a long row of years the main subjects to excavation of the Southern Turkmen Archaeological Complex Expedition (STACE). In the early sixties, and then — after some break — in the first half of the 70th years of the last century of YuTAKE excavation in the territory of Gyaur-kaly of the construction (which had R-9 index) who, by results of researches of 1962, was defined as Buddhist stupa2 was carried out.

as the Main arguments for such definition of a complex (besides its characteristic design) were served detection by the heads of a huge clay statue of Buddha and a remarkable painted vase containing the manuscript, obviously Indian by origin and Buddhist according to the contents here.

it is natural

that these interesting opening became subjects of special publications. M.E. Masson directing YuTAKE in the message about results of works of 1962 paid special attention to finds on R-9 which, naturally, were interpreted as Buddhist and were dated on the basis of the coins found at excavation Parthian vremenem3. A little later G.A. Koshelenko4 gave rather developed characteristic of a monument, having attracted comparative material and data of written tradition about rasprostrakoshelenko Gennady Andreevich is the corresponding member of RAS, the doctor of historical sciences, professor. E-shap: koshelenko@mail.ru

1 The author received the kind invitation from the St. Petersburg colleagues to take part in the anniversary collection in honor of V.A. Livshits. Unfortunately, the state of health led to the fact that all imaginable (and even inconceivable) deadlines were skirted. However the kind relation of an editorial board of this magazine allowed me at least in this form to express the respect and admiration of works of the wonderful researcher.
Up to this point the students who were carrying out it excavation did not suspect
2 about Buddhist accessory of a construction, stating the most fantastic assumptions of its appointment in the reports.
3 Masson 1963, 51-56.
4 It in a season of 1962 supervised (within the XVIII group of YuTAKE) excavation in the territory of Gyaur-kaly.

of not scientific research institute of the Buddhism within Parfiya, in particular its east chasti5. In a short form these conclusions were presented in its work of more general haraktera6. Togas - yes also the unique vase coming from this excavation, obviously later, than the main designs of a construction, and in character very close to works sasanidsky iskusstva7 was published. It allowed to raise a question of duration of existence this kompleksa8.

the Conclusions presented in M.E. Masson and G.A. Koshelenko's articles, generally, were accepted by scientific community and, per se, found the reflection in a number of the works devoted as to the fate of the Buddhism in Average Azii9, and in the general works on archeology and history of this region in drevnosti10. Let's note that B.A. Litvinsky, having considered data of the Ceylon texts, stated very probable assumption of much earlier penetration of the Buddhism on the territories which were a part Parthian tsarstva11.

for

A little in Merv open later one more monument connected with the Buddhism. Outside city walls of Gyaur-kaly, at a southeast corner of the ancient settlement (in 600 m to the southeast from east gate) the remains of one more mortar were found. In 1963, construction of the settlement was developed in this place. At the same time, naturally, the remains of the ancient buildings which are here collapsed. At the request of the chief of an expedition M.E. Masson of E.V. Rtveladze carried out short survey of one of hillocks hiding the remains of an ancient construction. Further it became clear that it was Buddhist stupa12. In 1965 this hillock was finally demolished by builders. At the same time contents of a clay vessel, most likely, playing reliquary role fell into their hands. In it there were four stone figurines, one figure from ivory, several sasanidsky coins (which are released at Khosrow I Anushiruwan governing since 531po 579 AD 13) and also a pile of leaves rukopisi14. Figurines became subject of the special publication of G.A. Pugachenkova claiming that they represent imports from Gandhara, most likely brought piligrimami15. As for the manuscript, it as showed researches, was written by means of the letter to Brahma in Sanskrit and had obviously Buddhist soderzhaniye16.

5 Koshelenko 1966, 175-212. The Chinese sources were used on a basis: Zürcher 1959.
6 Koshelenko 1966, 95-97.
7 Koshelenko 1966a, 92-105. Now see also Manassero 2003, 131-151.
In addition G.A. Koshelenko pointed
8 to proximity of a statue of Buddha from Merv with the statue from Miran dated approximately 4th century AD
9 See, for example, Litvinsky 1968; 1970, 53-132.
10 See, for example, Usmanova, Filanovich, Koshelenko 1985, 234-235.
11 Litvinsky 1967, 88-91.
12 Rtveladze 1974, 231-235. It was revealed that the mortar consisted of almost square platform and a roundish tower on it. The platform had the sizes: 15.6 m (North-South) x 15.4 m (West-East). The tower, probably, had diameter about 11.2 m. The entrance on the platform was from North side. From West side some extension was located. During excavation the ceramics of the 5-6th centuries AD and sasanidsky halka of the 6th century AD met (by M.E. Masson's definition).
By V.G. Lukonin's definition these coins were released by
13 in 18 g of his reign, that is 549 AD See Vorobyeva-Desyatovskaya 1983, 69.
14 Rtveladze 1974, 231.
15 Pugachenkova 1968, 61-64.
16 Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, Temkin 1966, 26-27. Further it was shown that this manuscript represented the unique text. It contained not one work, but E.V. Rtveladze's

assumed fragments from a row

that the early artifacts found in this reliquary could come from the first mortar and were postponed here during creation of this new pamyatnika17.

Opening of the second Buddhist monument, naturally, demanded revision of an overall picture of history of penetration and existence of this dogma in Merv. This task was carried out by E.V. Rtveladze who proposed two solutions, without allocating specially any of them. According to the first, second mortar was the evidence of increase in number of adherents of the Buddhism in Merv as some time both monuments functioned at the same time. The second decision was guided by M.E. Masson's assumption that the first mortar (which is in borders of the ancient settlement) was destroyed local zhitelyami18, hostile in relation to the Buddhism that occurred not earlier than V, and no later than the 6th centuries AD 19. M.E. Masson, however, did not exclude also that the mortar and the sculpture which is there were destroyed as a result zemletryaseniya20.

At the present level of study of a problem both decisions have the right for existence though it must be kept in mind that we have no certificates on hostility of local authorities (and local community) in relation to Buddhists. It is rather possible to speak about the certain toleration explained with boundary position of the region and need to provide loyalty of all population groups in relation to the central power. It seems that, for example, the status of Christians in Merv sasanidsky epokhi21 was it.

As for actually mortar, apparently, one circumstance unfairly remained in the shadow: the main designs of a mortar were laid out from an adobe brick of 40 x 40 x 12 cm in size that is characteristic of the Parthian period and it is improbable for sasanidsky. Proceeding from this observation, it is impossible to exclude a possibility of that, as this mortar had rather long history.

approach to Buddhist monuments of Merv in the middle of the 90th years of the 20th century Resolutely changed. Practically at the same time both monuments began to be considered on other, than earlier. As for the second mortar, Item Kalliyeri22 became the initiator of revision. Having analyzed one of the artifacts found in a reliquary of a country mortar — the stone image of the harpist — he came to a conclusion that it represents the mirror handle similar to that which were produced in Kashmir at the beginning of the 6th century AD. Making a start from this conclusion and attracting some other fakty23, P. Kalliyeri claims that during the period approximately between 500 and 540 AD Merv was occupied by eftalita. As

of texts which were necessary for promotion of Buddhist beliefs. See also Litvinskij. Zeimal 2004, 184.

This assumption was
17 wrong as later accidentally on R-9 the reliquary of this mortar was found. See Pugachenkov, Usmanova 1994, 163-164.
18 M.E. Masson considered that organizers of disorder were the local merchants who were afraid of the competition from the Indian dealers.
19 Masson 1963, 55.
20 Masson 1963, 55-56.
21 Koshelenko, Bader, Gaibov 1995, 55-70.
22 Callieri 1994.
He points
23 to similarity of handwriting of mervsky Buddhist texts to gilgitsky manuscripts and proximity of the head of Buddha to works of early medieval art. It is thought that any of these arguments has no serious value.

of an eftalita owned extensive territories in which the Buddhism received considerable distribution, they acted as initiators of construction of Buddhist cult constructions in Merv.

the Artificiality of this construction is evident. First of all, we have no evidence of special protection of an eftalitama buddizma24. Moreover, there are proofs that eftalita destroyed and plundered Buddhist sanctuaries and monastyri25. The fact that eftalita owned Gandhara does not prove at all that they constructed a mortar in Merv.

In the same way at this time revision and stories of the first mortar located within Gyaur-kaly happens. In this regard it is necessary to point to G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova's two almost identical extensive articles which applied for becoming the final report on excavation of this monument and which sharply dispersed from what was published ranee26. In these works an attempt to generalize results of excavation of a mortar (1960-1966) and a sangarama (1970-1978) was made. However article M.I. Filanovich and Z.I. Usmanova in whom the gap with the past was not so striking and in which many positions are treated not as in G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. two articles Usmanovoy27 was practically at the same time published.

G.A. Pugachenkov and Z.I. Usmanov's

are especially allocated by the following from the main conclusions: 1) the monument consisted of two parts: actually stupy28 and sangaramy29, divided by small vacant space; 2) the mortar was built not in Parthian time as it was thought earlier, and during reign of the sasanidsky tsar Shapour II (307-379); 3) four periods of functioning stupy30, covering time from Shapour II to Kavad I (488-496, 499-531) 31 are revealed; 4) two periods of functioning sangaramy32 are revealed.

Unfortunately, practically all main conclusions can (and have to) to be challenged. The author of this article already had to comment mentioned raboty33. Article devoted to the analysis of the book of B.Ya. was written to them. Stavisko-go34 in which all problems of history of the mervsky Buddhism were based on these

24 For more details see ITN. T. I., 477; 486-487.
25 For example, in Hadda. See Mo1ate (And 1978, 72.
26 Pugachenkova, Usmanova 1994, 142-171; Р^асепкоуа, Shtapoua 1995, 51-81.
27 Mapouy, Shtapoua 1996, 185-201.
28 See Pugachenkov, Usmanova 1994, 144-151. The mortar, according to authors, consisted of the platform (14 x 13 m and 3.5 m high) and a cylindrical tower (diameter a little more than 10 m). The entrance on the platform was on North side where the ladder which is partially limited to two poles was located. The ladder is tracked at distance of 6.3 m (not completely).
29 See Pugachenkov, Usmanova 1994, 150-160. Sangarama covered the area about 140 square meters (32 rooms, including corridors). It clearly was divided into three parts: temple, inhabited and household. Small fragments of a sculpture (ganchevy and clay) and wall painting are found in many rooms. Sangarama, according to G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova, endured two periods of the functioning.
30 The fifth period — desolation time.
G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova for the unclear reason for years of reign of this tsar call
31 419-479
there is no
32 However, in articles direct instructions on what chronological framework for this part of a complex was chosen by authors.
33 Koshelenko 2001, 200-211.
34 Stavisky 1998.

two publications. Therefore the author was forced to analyze these two publications very in detail. Owing to this fact now it is possible to be limited only to the shortest reasons.

First of all, it is impossible to accept the offered date of construction of a mortar at all. Authors of these publications for some reason write only about finds of sa-sanidsky coins as the dating sign though at excavation very considerable number Parthian monet35 was found. But about these coins and about that, where exactly they were found, in the text there is no word. To resolve issues of dating, rejecting a considerable part of numismatical data, it is not represented correct.

All other problems are solved by

approximately at the same level. We believe that the main reason for such situation was that, according to a common practice of YuTAKE, excavation of this monument conducted generally studenty36. The mortar was investigated from 1960 to 1966. From them only the field season 1962 and a part of a season of 1963 of a research was passed under the leadership of the professional archeologist (G.A. Koshelenko), the rest of the time of excavation were conducted under the leadership of students who besides also changed every season. It is natural that qualification of the student was not enough for understanding so difficult pamyat-nik37. Besides, finds and documentation were lost.

by

makes an impression that G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova used these student's reports, without pondering deeply upon what picture they receive as a result. A result is the total absence of coordination of three components of the report: text, plan and razrezov38. We do not speak about scandalous discrepancies in treatment numismatical materiala39.

In addition to what is written above and that is the reduced option of the criticism published in 2001 now can be added

still the following. G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova in the articles do not give an exact chronological framework of existence of a sangarama (with its two periods). However from kontek35 See Masson 1963, 51 ("there are a lot of copper coins of pozdnemargiansky issues of the 2-3rd centuries AD"). It is remembered also by E.V. Rtveladze (Rtveladze 2012, 99-100) noting the fact that Parthian coins came from structures of the platform.

36 About it are directly written by G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova (see Pugachenkov, Usmanova 1994, 143) and also M.I. Filanovich and Z.I. Usmanova (see Filanovic, Usmanova 1996, 189).
We will note
37 that on excavation of a sangarama which was carried out from 1971 to 1978 by Z.I. Usmanova (see. Usmanova 1976, 11-19; 1977, 13-33; 1979, 16-18), there are no remarks. We do not want to cast a shadow on the students working here at all. They worked selflessly, but so difficult monument could nonplus not only the student. Let's note in addition that in general it was all the third monument connected with the Buddhism, opened in the territory of Central Asia what E.V. Rtveladze fairly reminded of (Rtveladze 2012, 99-100).
38 For example, on the plan of the platform one of the parties is partially deprived of an external side; in the central part also the section the North-South as opening was not made here looks purely speculative; reconstruction of early history of a mortar is made on the basis of the narrow section from West side finished that what authors consider an external side of an early mortar, however the drawing of this section will not be agreed with the plan as on a section there are certain corridor 1 and corridor 2 which are not reflected in the plan, etc. For more details see Koshelenko 2001, 206 in any way.
39 For example, G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova write about five coins of Shapour II found in the platform of "an early mortar". At the same time S.D. Loginov and A.B. Nikitin, publishing coins Sa-sanidov from excavation of YuTAKE, specify that only two coins of this governor were found in this place (Loginov, Nikitin 1993, 256, 262, No. No. 13, 105). It is easy to increase number of examples.

of hundred appears that, most likely, they carry the first period by the time of government of the mervsky tsar who was releasing coins which are called "the mervsky rider". The second period contacts Hormizd II'S government (303-309 AD). Thus, authors do not notice an obvious internal contradiction: constantly emphasizing a chronological priority of a mortar in comparison with sangaramy, they at the same time clearly specify what at their system of datings of a sangaram appears the predecessor of a mortar.

we Will note

that in article published two years after of M.I. Phil-novich and Z.I. Usmanov treat time of construction of a mortar differently. They speak about Shapour's coins of I (but not Shapour of II) found in the basis of an initial mortar and criticize S.D. Loginov and A.B. Nikitin for unsubstantiality them utverzhdeniy40. Besides, a bit different looks also a periodization in existence of a mortar. So, now the third period of its existence belongs by the time of Shapour of I41.

In the same way do not have

the bases to agree with G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova's opinion on time of the termination of functioning of this religious complex. Despite the fact that these authors write, time of reign of the tsar Hormizd of IV (579-590) 42

Thus most probable date of the termination of functioning of a monument is, there are no reasons to accept G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova's opinion on time of emergence and functioning of the Buddhist complex which was in the territory of the ancient settlement Gyaur-kala. Most probable date of emergence of this complex Parthian time, most likely — the end of this period is. Time of the termination of its functioning is time of reign of Hormizd of IV.

However the point of view stated by these researchers had strong impact on the authors writing later. Them it is necessary to carry to number first of all B.Ya. Stavisky. We mean it already mentioned knigu43. In literature it was already noted that in this book the author did not conduct an independent research of any of the lifted problems at all, being limited, as a rule, to repetition of what was written predshestvenniki44. The record number of times — addresses a Buddhism problem in Merv B. Ya. Stavisky 6 (Pages 22, 99-100, 158-159, 166, 183, 194), emphasizing every time that M.E. Masson and G.A. Koshelenko were deeply wrong, referring emergence of a monument to Parthian time. There is no need to address specially this work as in it (in application to the topic interesting us) there is nothing original. Let's note only that

40 Shapouy, Shtapoua 1996, 198.
41 Shapouy, Shtapoua 1996, 191.
42 See Koshelenko 2001, 208.
43 Stavisky 1998. The reduced option: B1au18ku 1993/94, 133-142.
44 Angry 1999, 359-360. See also Koshelenko 2001, 204-205. In the same (enough rare) cases when B.Ya. Stavisky does not agree with opinion of the predecessor, he, as a rule, does not support the assumptions in any way. For example, he seeks to correct G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova who refer construction of a mortar at the right time not earlier than the middle of the 4th century, and claims that this event took place in the third quarter of this century. But in support of the thesis to them it is not written a uniform word.

B.Ya. Stavisky was guided by work of 1994, but not 1996 where more objective picture was created.

In this regard the next research in which Buddhism problems in Merv are discussed deserves

much bigger attention. We mean the book by T.K. Mkrtychev devoted to the history of Buddhist art in Average Azii45. The author rather attentively analyzes the available sources, both archaeological, and written. However a zadannost of approach prevent the author to come to the correct conclusions.

T.K. Mkrtychev completely makes G.A. Pugachenkova's conclusions and Z.I. Us - manovy, without noticing in them those striking contradictions about which it was told above. Without repeating, we will note only, as in this part of the concept of the author we see several his own contradictions. So, he very sympathetically quotes P. Kalliyeri, writing that it is difficult to expect creation of a Buddhist mortar in Merv during the reign of it which was not differing in toleration of the governor as Shapour II46, but at the same time on the next page so sympathetically states the point of view of G.A. Pugachenkova and Z.I. Usmanova concerning construction of a mortar in it vremya47.

However the main edge of criticism T.K. Mkrtychev is sent to

in other direction. He aspires if not to destroy then to belittle value of the Chinese sources on Buddhism stories in the territory of Parfiya. It is known that the main share of information on this problem is in structure of the Chinese written tradition, and in tradition — in the composition of "The biography of worthy monks", namely in that its section which is devoted to Shi-gao48 An's life. The main version of the biography of Shi-gao An reports about him the following: Shi-gao An was the Parthian crown prince extremely committed to knowledge. After the death of the father he came to the throne, but soon left it, having delegated the power to the uncle. Having decided to promote distribution of the Buddhism, it goes to the East and "at the beginning of government of the Han dynasty of the emperor Huan-di (147-167) arrived in China" 49. In tradition the many-sided translation activity of Shi-gao An who perfectly mastered Chinese is reflected. "Throughout all time of Shi-gao An published sutra and shastra, with a total number of thirty nine. Their sense is clear and distinct, the style is extremely simple. The translations are detailed, but are not florid, unartful, but are not rough. To read them — occupation fascinating and unfatiguing" 50. Is present at Shi-gao An's biography one more chronological instruction: completion of its work by it on the translation sutr belongs to the end of government of the emperor Liang-di (168-189) 51.

generally, earlier anybody of researchers had no doubts concerning the accuracy of the main contents of the text. Shi-gao An was perceived as one of the first missionaries acquainting China with the Buddhism and as the great translator of Buddhist texts into Chinese. Divergences concerned only

45 Mkrtychev 2002.
46 Mkrtychev 2002, 32.
47 Mkrtychev 2002, 29.
48 Huey-Jiao 1991, 102-107.
49 Huey-Jiao 1991, 102.
50 Huey-Jiao 1991, 103.
51 Huey-Jiao 1991, 103.

of details of origin of Shi-gao An. The opinion on its margiansky origin was the most popular recently. It is known that in the first centuries AD Margiana the local dynasty — a younger side branch of the Arshakidsky sort operated. When Buddhist monuments in Merv were found, a conclusion that Shi-gao An was the representative of this branch roda52 became natural.

However desire to eliminate the Mervsky oasis of those areas in which early penetration of the Buddhism is fixed forces T.K. Mkrtychev to look for a denial to this natural assumption. His first argument — it is more probable to think that the Parthian prince came from any other area where existence of the Buddhism is already earlier recorded. The author thereby points to Indo-Parthian governors. However this argument has no evidential value. Practically all researchers agree that to the third quarter of the 1st century AD all main territories of Indo-Parfiya were conquered kushanami53. At the same time some researchers even find it possible even to date these events more precisely. So, O. Bopearachchi refers falling them by the time of Kudzhula Kadfiz who governed (according to the most probable scheme) at 40-90 or 40-95 AD 54. Even the most radical supporters of late datings (such as M. Alram) refer falling of Indo-parthians to the beginning of the 2nd century AD 55

Usually the exception becomes only for Arakhosiya where existence of Indo-Parthian statehood up to arrival is supposed of Sasani-dov56 here. Supports this point of view and Since Mkrtychev57. At the same time some researchers even consider that the last from Indo-Parthian tsars of Ardamitr of rules in Arakhosiya even at the sasanidsky tsar Shapour of I58.

However several reasons force to doubt arakhosiysky origin of Shi-gao An. First of all, it is necessary to point that Margiana took the important place on "The great silk way" 59 and therefore a priori she was familiar to Chinese more, than, for example, Arakhosiya who settled down much to the south, and her communications with China could not be and were not a little serious, comparable with communications of Margiany60. Besides, great doubts in a traditional picture of Indo-Parthian Arakhosiya of late time appeared in recent years. A.B. Nikitin carefully investigated the coins attributed (with kon52 For confirmation of Parthian Arshakidsky origin of Shi-gao An it is considered it necessary to pay attention to that circumstance which, apparently, was never mentioned. At the biography of the prince there is an episode of transfer of throne by it to the uncle, that is the father's brother. But such episodes filled Parfiya's history (especially early) where two principles of transfer of power constantly competed: from the father to the son and from the elder brother to younger. See Koshelenko 1976, 31-37; Koselenko 1983, 133-146.

53 MacDowall 1985, 555-566; Bopearachchi 2007, 41-54.
54 Bopearachchi 2007, 41-54.
55 Alram 1999, 44.
56 Cribb 1985, 243-305; Simonetta 1993, 169-185.
57 Mkrtychev 2002, 29. At the same time he, for some reason, refers to D. Kribba and O. Boperachchi (The Crossroads... No. No. 34-39) which at the specified numbers describe rannekushansky coins.
58 MacDowall 1965, 137-147.
59 Bernard 2003, 929-969.
60 P. Daffina at a research of problems of the Buddhism in Margiana reminds that direct official diplomatic connections between Parfiya and China ustnovitsya within the 2nd century AD See Daffina 1975, 181-183.

tsa 19th century) Ardamitre. He proved that the legend is read incorrectly. These coins were issued the tsar Sasan-Farn and have to be dated the end of the 1st century AD 61

Thus, Indo-Parthian governors are the phenomenon only of the 1st century AD. They fell under blows of the arising Kushansky kingdom. Thus, Shi-gao An whose time of activity falls on the middle — the second half of the 2nd century AD, could not belong to number of Indo-Parthian governors in any way.

other arguments of T.K. Mkrtychev are Even less convincing

>. He, in particular, points to facts of common knowledge of presence in China of parthians in times after fall of Parthia. From this the researcher draws a conclusion that Chinese poorly knew Parfiyu62. Though it directly is not told, but such argument from the point of view of the author has to look terribly: what knowledge can be if the Chinese authors call Buddhist figures parthians, and Parfiya died for a long time.

But should remember a simple thing — there is no direct correlation between statehood and ethnic group. It is difficult to present that all parthians, having learned about defeat on the plain Ormizdakan (in the Mussel) troops of the governor Pars of Ardashire of army of the tsar Artaban V, immediately die or commit a suicide from chagrin. Of course, parthians as special ethnic group continued to exist some more centuries. A huge number of sources confirms it.

we Will begin

with official documents. Early sasanidsky inscriptions (time of Ardashire and Shapour I) are carried out not only on Persian, but also on Parthian yazyke63. The Parthian nobility is repeatedly mentioned in these documents. Generally, at an early stage of existence of the Sasanidsky state the Parthian element in its structure took the important place — the second, after Persians.

to

Important information on parthians of this time is given by the sources lighting early history of Manichaeism. They report about what Attract sent the missionaries knowing Parthian language and the letter to Khurasan advised to attract the local nobility. Among adherents of new religion there were "princes", the most active Manichean communities existed in territories where there lived parthians, in particular, in Merve64. Further Parthian language became official language Manichean tserkvi65 that would be impossible if not the mass address to this religion of the people speaking Parthian language. Let's remind that the Manichaeism arose after falling of the power Arshakidov. Under some certificates of sources, Manya himself to some extent belonged to it rodu66.

At last, we will address the ordinary settlement of the Mervsky oasis — Ge - to a bekly-depa. As it is well known, the monument existed at the end of Parthian and the beginning sasanidsky eras (up to the end of the 4th century) 67. At a research of layers of sasanidsky time quite considerable number of ostrak was found. All

61 Nikitin 1994, 67-69. M. Alram also agreed with this point of view (see Alram 1999, 42).
62 Mkrtychev 2002, 30.
63 See Back 1978, 281-372.
64 Asmussen 20, 21, 23, 24; Zundermann 1971, 81-87; 1981, 26-27, 36-41, 55-57, 126-128, 133135. Ancient Merv 46-59. See also Hosroyev 2007, 100-101, 225-228.
65 For more details see Hosroyev 2007, 96.
66 See Hosroyev 2007, 89.
67 Koshelenko, Nikitin 1991, 108-121.
were executed by

of an inscription on crocks on Parthian yazyke68. Thus, is not subject to doubt, as after falling of the state of Arshakidov in eastern regions some more centuries inhabitants spoke Parthian language and perceived themselves as parthians.

Thereby as it is represented, the assumptions of insufficient knowledge Chinese of this region are removed and the Chinese written sources are rehabilitated. Trying to sum up the final outcome, it would be desirable to emphasize that hyper critical constructions time are based on very shaky basis, and the most probable time of penetration of the Buddhism into Margiana, probably, should be considered after all Parthian epokhu69.

at the same time we lay aside a question of how the Buddhism got into the Mervsky oasis which demands a special research. In the same way some hypotheses which do not have serious value are put outside brackets. A. Bivar's assumption that Merv was captured (for a short time) by kushana belongs to their number, for example, and this fact promoted distribution of the Buddhism in given oblasti70. The idea of capture of a kushanama of Merv and other regions of the southern Turkmenistan already expressed earlier (in particular, R. Girshman) and many years M.E. by Massonom71 was resolutely disproved ago.

LITERATURE

A. Bivar 1991: Earth Kanarang. Merv between kushana and Sasanidami//Merv in ancient and medieval history of the East. Cultural interactions and communications. Ashgabat, 7-8.

M.I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya. 1983: Monuments to writing of a kharoshta and Brahma from the Soviet Central Asia//History and the culture of Central Asia. M, 210-217.

M.I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, E. Temkin 1966: The Indian manuscripts in Turkmenistan//Science and life. 1, 26-27.

G.A. Koshelenko's

>. 1966: Parfiya's culture. M

G.A. Koshelenko's

>. 1976: Genealogy of the first Arshakidov (once again about nisiysky ostrak No. 1760)//History and the culture of the people of Central Asia (antiquity and the Middle Ages). M, 31-37.

G.A. Koshelenko's

>. 1966a: A unique vase from Merv//VDI. 1, 92-105.

G.A. Koshelenko's

>. 2001: About the latest work concerning the fate of the Buddhism in Central Asia//VDI. 4, 200-211.

G.A. Koshelenko's

>, A.B. Nikitin 1991: Monetary finds and problems of a stratigraphy to Gebekly-depa//the Newsletter of the International association on studying cultures of Central Asia. Issue 18, 108-121.

V.A. Livshits, A.B. Nikitin 1989: Parthian inscriptions with Gebekly-dep//VDI. 3, 80-89.

B.A. Litvinsky. 1967: Makhadeva and Duttkhagamani (about the beginning of the Buddhism in Parfiya)//VDI. 3, 88-91.

68 Livshits, Nikitin 1989, 80-89; Livshitz, Nikitin 1991, 109-126; 1994, 312-323.
The western scientists who were, specially, investigating this problem also agree
69 with this opinion. See SaTet 2005, 307 — 317. She considers that the mortar in the territory of Gyaur-kaly was created at the end of II — the middle of the 3rd centuries AD. Shapour II's time is time of reconstruction of a mortar. Same Walter 1998, 39-58. Similar views also see Daffina 1975, 179-183.
70 Bivar 1991, 7-8.
71 Masson 1955, 17 (in the same place and previous literature).

B.A. Litvinsky. 1997: Buddhism and Buddhist culture of Central Asia (antiquity)//Moscow oriental studies. Essays, researches, developments. Memories N.A. Ivanova / A.M. Petrov (edition). M, 55-78.

B.A. Litvinsky. 2001: The Buddhism in Central Asia (study problems)//VDI. 4, 188-199.

B.A. Litvinsky. 2003: The Buddhism among Iranians//Scripta Gregoriana. The collection in honor of the seventieth anniversary of the academician G.M. of Bongard-Levina / Page. L. Tikhvinsky (edition). M, 89-98.

M.E. Masson. 1955: The people and areas of the southern part of Turkmenistan as a part of Parthia//Works YuTAKE. V, 7-70.

M.E. Masson. 1963: From works of the Southern Turkmen complex expedition of Academy of Sciences of the Turkmen SSR in 1962//News of AN of the Turkmen SSR, a series of social sciences. 3, 51-56.

Mkrtychev T. K. 2002: Buddhist art of Central Asia (1-10th centuries). M

A.B. Nikitin 1992: Srednepersidsky ostrakona from a Buddhist sanctuary in Old Merv//VDI. 1, 95-105.

G.A. Pugachenkov's

>. 1968: The Gandharsky sculpture in Merv//Art. 6, 61-64.

G.A. Pugachenkov, Z.I. Usmanov's

>. 1994: A Buddhist complex in the Giaour Calais of Old Merv//VDI. 1, 142-171.

E.V. Rtveladze's

of 1974: A new Buddhist monument in Old Merv//Works YuTAKE. XV, 231-235.

E.V. Rtveladze's

of 2012: Remembering the past. Book I. Tashkent.

Angry Z.V.

of 1999: rets. on prince: B.Ya. Stavisky. The fate of the Buddhism in Central Asia. M, 1998//PIFK. VII, 358-361.

B.Ya. Stavisky. 1998: The fate of the Buddhism in Central Asia. M

Z.I. Usmanov's

>. 1976: Studying a fortification and Buddhist monument in Merv//Materials on history, a historiography and archeology. 517, 1-19.

Z.I. Usmanov's

>. 1977: A Buddhist monument in Merv//MIA. 533, 13-33.

Z.I. Usmanov's

>. 1979: Excavation of a Buddhist monument of the 3-4th centuries in Merv//Achievements of the Central Asian archeology. 4, 16-18.

Z.I. Usmanova, M.I. Filanovich, G.A. Koshelenko. 1985: Margiana//Archeology of the USSR. The most ancient states of the Caucasus and Central Asia. M, 234-240.

A.L. Hosroyev. 2007: History of Manichaeism (Prolegomena). SPb.

Huey-Jiao's
1991: Biographies of worthy monks (Gao Seng chzhuan) / M.E. Ermakova (lane): in 3 volumes. T. I (Section 1: Translators). M

of Alram M. 1999: Indo-Parthian and early Kushan chronology: numismatic evidence//Coins, Art, and Chronology. Essays on the Pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands/M. Alram, D. E. Klimburg-Setler (ed.). Wien, 19-49.

of Back M. 1978: Die Sassanidischen Staatsinschriften. Studien zur Orthographie und Phonologie des Mittelpersischen der Inschriften zusammen mit einem etymologischen Index des mittelpersischen Wortgutes und einem Textcorpus der behandelten Inschriften (Acta Iranica. Troisième série. Textes et Mémoire, Vol. VIII). Téhéran; Liège; Leiden.

of Bernard P. 2005: De l&Euphrate à la Chine avec la caravane de Maès Titianos (ca 100 de notre ère)//CRAI, 929-969.

of Bopearachchi O. 2007: Some observations on the chronology of the early Kushans//Des Indo-grecs aux Sassanides: données pour l&histoire et la géographie historique (Res Orientalis. Vol. XVII). Bures-sur-Yvette, 41-54.

of Callieri F. 1994: Hephtalites in Margiana? New Evidence from the Buddhist Relics in Merv//Atti del convegno internationale sul tema & #34; La Persia e l&Asia Centrale de Alessandro al X secolo". Roma, 79-83.

of Carter M. L. 2005: A Marble acrolithic head from Afghanistan//Afghanistan. Ancient carrefour entre l&Est et l&Ouest. Actes du colloque international organize par C. Landes et O. Bopearachchi/O. Bopearachchi, M. - F. Boussac (ed.). Tounhaut, 307-317.

of Cribb J. 1985: New evidence of Indo-Parthian political history//Coin Hoards. VII, 243305.

of Daffina P. 1975: Sulla piu antica diffusione del buddhismo nelle Serindia e nell&Iran orientale//Monumentum H. S. Nyberg (Acta Iranica. 2-nd series. Hommages et Opera minora). Leiden; Téhéran; Liége, 179-192.

of FilanovicM. I., Usmanova S.I. 1966: Les frontiers occidentales de la diffusion du budd-hisme en Asie Centrale//Cahiers d&Asie Centrale. 1-2, 185-201.

of Koshelenko G. A. 1966: Beginning of Buddhism in Margiana//Acta Antiqua Academiae Scienciarum Hungaricae. T. XIV, fasc. 1-2, 175-212.

of Koselenko G. A. 1983: La genealogia dei primi Arsacidi (ancora sull&ostraccon n. 1760)//Mesopotamia. XVII [1982], 133-146.

of Koshelenko G. A., BaderA. N., Gaibov VA. 1995: The Beginnings of Christianity in Merv//Iranica Antiqua. XXX, 55-70.

of Litvinsky B.A. 1970: Outline History of Buddhism in Central Asia. Moscow.

of Litvinsky B.A. 1970: Outline History of Buddhism in Central Asia//Kushan Studies in USSR. Papers presented by the Soviet Scholars at the UNESCO Conference on History, Archaeology and Culture of Central Asia in the Kushan Period, Dushanbe, 1968. Calcutta, 53-132.

of Litvinskij B. A., Zeimal T. I. 2004: The Buddhist Monastery of Ajina tepa, Tajikistan. History and Art of Buddhism in Central Asia. Rome.

of Livshitz V.A., NikitinA.B. 1991: The Parthian epigraphic remains from Göbekli-depe and some other Parthian inscriptions//Corolla Iranica. Papers in honor of Prof. Dr. David Neil Mackenzi on the occasion of his 65th birthday on April 8th, 1991/R. E. Emmerick, D. Weber (ed.). Frankfurt am Main; Bern; New York, 109-126.

of Livshitz V. A., Nikitin A. B. 1994: Parthian and Middle Persian Documents from South Turkmenistan. A Survey//Ancient Civilization from Scythia to Sibiria. Vol. I. 3, 312-323.

of Loginov S.D., Nikitin A.B. 1993: Coins of Shapur II from Merv//Mesopotamia. XXVIII, 247-270.

of MacDowallD. W. 1965: The Dynasty of the later Indo-Parthian//NC. V, 137-147.

of MacDowall D. W. 2003: The successors of the Indo-Greeks in Begram//South Asian Archeology 1983/J. Schotsmans, M. Taddei (ed.). Naples, 555-556.

of Manassero N. 2003: l vaso dipinta di Merv//Parthica. Incontri di cultura nel mondo antico. 5, 131-151.

of Motamedi H. 1978: A General view on Hadda art and history//Afghanistan. Vol. 31, 2, 69-90.

of Nikitin A. 1994: Coins of the Last Indo-Parthian King of Sakastan (A Farewell to Ardami-tra)//South Asian Studies. 10, 67-69.

of Pugacenkova G.A., Usmanova Z.I. 1995: Buddhist monuments in Merv//In the Land of Gryphons. Papers on Central Asian archaeology in Antiquity/A. Invernizzi (ed.). Firenze, 51-81.

of Simonetta A. 1993: The chrono

a. pugachenkov z.i. usmanov b.ya. staviskiy t. k.'s margiana buddhism mortar gyaur-kala g. mkrtychev e.v. rtveladze g.a. pugachenkova
Matthew Anthony
Other scientific works: