国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

Among the implements, the sickle from culture III (fig. 274) is worthy of
remark. It differs in its form from all European types of sickles (cf. H. Schmidt, Die
Bronzesichelfund von Oberthau Kr. Merseburg, in Zeitschrift f. Ethnologie, 1904,
pp. 416 ff.). The characteristics of the sickle of Anau are the smooth surface of the
blade and the form of the tang or haft, the end of which is bent backward. The
same peculiarities I find, in contrast to the European types of the bronze period,
only on the sickles from Troja which belong to a hoard (P) (Depotfunde) of the VI
city (Cat. Nos. 6137–6139 of the Schliemann collection).
Striking, too, is the knife-blade with a square hole in the handle-end without
any particular forming of the tang, found in culture III (fig. 271). I find similar
formless knives occurring only in the Altai-Ural bronze age, of which the stock of
types has been brought together by Aspelin (Antiquités du Nord Finno-Ougrien,
figs. 184–187, 214–217) and by Radlof (in the Materiali po arxeologie Roccii, Nos.
3, 5, 15, 27; cf. No. 3, plate I, 6).
Therefore, while we are able to show several instances of the relation of Turke-
stan with the western and southern discovery districts, the connections with the
north seem to have been very slight and rare.
Of course, the established equations do not suffice for chronological determi-
nation, because we have here to do for the most part with types which were in use
for a long time. Among the remaining finds from the four successively flourishing
cultures of Anau there are only two objects which might be used for an absolute
chronology, and these only with grave reservation. The engraved stone with
representations of a man, a lion, and a griffin (fig. 400) is undoubtedly imported,
and has been brought only from Western Asia to Central Asia. Possibly the route
was the same as that of the connections with the Trojan sphere.
In forming an opinion concerning the stone, two points are to be considered—
the form and the representations. As regards form, three-sided stones, drilled
longitudinally, have, as is well known, been found in Crete; they have picture
writing on all three sides and belong in the beginning of the early Mycenean
development.* With these stones ours has in common only form. The repre-
sentations on ours differ wholly, not only from these stones inscribed with picto-
graphs, but also generally from all Cretan seals and so-called island stones (Insel-
steinen); and they point to another center of origin. The so-called Hittite stones
are also of another kind, both as to technique and sphere of representations, and
belong surely to a younger epoch of the Oriental art of engraving on stone. No
other analogies are known to me. I can only surmise that the stone of Anau points
to Asia Minor. With Assyro-Babylonian representations it has nothing to do.
The griffin seems to me to point more to Syrian origin. As regards its age, of course
nothing definite can be said; but the form and the very awkwardly formed repre-
sentations indicate for it a place in the II millennium B. C. The analogy with the
Cretan stone would bring into consideration the time of the XII Egyptian dynasty,