Virtually nothing is known about the religion of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex, a remarkable and previously unknown civilisation discovered in the AD 1970s, and recorded by the famed Soviet-Uzbek archaeologist Viktor Sarianidi. While it is postulated that the so-called ‘Bactrian Princesses’, the composite statues of female seated figures which are the civilisation’s most famous archaeological remains, represents some kind of goddess, perhaps a mother figure. Another figure, which appears in Bactria’s unique composite statuary, is known as ‘Scarface’. This figure, with ophidian skin, monstrous proportions, and a prominent scar across one eye (which is usually an empty socket), is proposed to be some kind of demon or negative entity, whose injuries indicate was defeated in battle by some kind of hero. A third, and much rarer, composite figure, of a youth, may represent such a hero. But it is evident that the religion of the BMAC was at least as complex as the polytheistic contemporary systems further to the west, in Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt and the Cyclades. Hints at this complexity are beginning to emerge in the archaeological record.

This remarkable – and large, for its style and period – lapis lazuli plaque may offer further hints at this religious environment. The scene is identical to a smaller lapis votive object currently in the Musée du Louvre (AO 26073). Described in the Louvre’s catalogue as a ‘token’ (jeton), it is a roughly 2.5 cm (1 in) circular object, proportionally somewhat thicker than our plaque, with a hole through the centre for suspension from a string. The Louvre’s ‘token’ bears an identical scene to our plaque on the obverse side. A muscular male figure, wearing a loincloth, sits on a small throne or stool with a curled protrusion at the rear. His hands are together in front of him, his fists touching, and in them he holds some kind of vertical object, perhaps a sceptre. With a small round ear, prominent almond-shaped eye, and a large nose, he has a long braided hairstyle which falls over his shoulder. In front of the man’s face is the crescent of the Moon. In front of him, kneeling, is a female figure. She wears the traditional kaunakes, a garment of tufted sheep’s wool with a distinctive pattern, which is commonly associated both with the BMAC and the Mesopotamian civilisation. Indeed, we might call this garment characteristic of both. The female figure, with similarly prominent nose, eyes and hair, is bare-shouldered, and holds in one hand a cup or goblet, which she raises to the male figure. Her hair is also braided, of a similar length, and falls over her shoulder. In front of her is a slightly floral looking symbol which, in opposition to the crescent Moon, we can assume is the Sun. The style of the piece is remarkably close to the Sumerian. The figures are presented with the heads, legs, and arms in profile, with the shoulders and torso straight on. This contorted arrangement of the bodies is mimicked in the art of Egypt and Sumer, and is clearly designed to make each individual element immediately recognisable even at small scales or from a distance. The idea is not naturalism, but rather a programmatic realism in which each body part is symbolically represented. Additionally, the rendering of the facial features – large almond-shaped eye approximately halfway down the face, a large nose, round ear, a sloping forehead, and little or no supraorbital ridge – mimics strongly the Sumerian style. While we cannot discount that these three connected societies independently came to the same solution for the problem of two dimensional representation, a more satisfying explanation lies in the obvious and well-documented links between all three.

The Louvre ‘token’ has been described by various authors as ‘a couple in conversation’, or another similar innocuous interpretation. However, this discounts the symbolism of the sun and the moon, which appear between each figure. It also discounts that, on the reverse of the Louvre ‘token’, the same couple are presented again, but this time the roles are reversed. The male, presented on the obverse as seated on the throne, sits on his knees on the reverse, while the bare-breasted woman takes her place on the throne. In addition, the astrological symbols of the Sun and the Moon, have switched places. It is clear, then, that the Sun is associated with the female figure specifically, and the Moon with the male figure. Why one figure sits and the other kneels is unknown; there is clearly no gender distinction, since the female figure is seated on the reverse side of the ‘token’, and numerous ‘Bactrian Princesses’ are known with visible seats under their kaunakes.

In identifying these characters, we must turn to later and neighbouring religious practices, about which we understand more, to draw tentative conclusions. A later goddess worshipped in Central Asia, named Nana, was associated both with astral entities like the Sun and the Moon, and also with earthly kingship, which in numerous ancient cultures (e.g. Egypt) was represented by a throne. Nana was derived from much more ancient goddesses; notably, she is a direct descendent of the Neo-Sumerian goddess Nanaya. A well-known limestone stela of the Babylonian King Meli-Šipak II (1186 BC – 1172 BC) (Musée du Louvre Sb 23, with a near-identical copy, Sb 24) depicts him offering to Nanaya, who is seated on a throne, and before whom are three astrological symbols: a star, the Sun, and the Moon. It is not hard, then, to see a connection between the female figure and the contemporary deity Nanaya. A male god, Sin (also known as Nanna), was associated in Sumerian culture with the moon. His symbol was a thin crescent, of the type seen before the male figure here. If we can associate this male figure with Sin, then we must recognise that his BMAC iconography is somewhat different. Whereas the Sumerians depicted Sin as a bearded mature male, this BMAC deity is youthful, masculine and bare-faced. It is possible that these two deities represent syncretism, i.e. the semi-adoption and incorporation of foreign deities into the BMAC religion, due to other cultural contacts. However, it is equally, if not more, likely that these two figures are homegrown BMAC deities, who happen to share the iconography of the Sumerian Nanaya and Sin, thanks to a shared cultural milieu. We may interpret this plaque as a scene of the courtship between the Sun and the Moon, which is replicated on the Louvre ‘token’. Indeed, it is likely that our plaque had a partner, now lost, which was reversed the scene.

The significance of our plaque is underlined by its material. Lapis lazuli was highly prized in the ancient world for its intense blue colour. Blue was, and remained until the Tenth Century AD, an impossibly difficult colour to replicate artificially. Objects in the colour were therefore highly sought-after in the ancient world. Lapis lazuli, one of the rare blue semi-preious stones, was mined in one place only before the modern era: Sar-e-Sang in northern Afghanistan. Mined from sheer rock faces in the Kokcha Valley, lapis lazuli came from some of the most inhospitable places on Earth. Politically, this region was probably loosely controlled; the area has remained for most of its history in the hands of constantly warring local tribes. The BMAC, however, centred on this part of Central Asia, would have controlled the export of this remarkable material, and ensured its export to the rest of the Ancient Near East, as far as Egypt. But even though the BMAC controlled the source, lapis would have remained impossibly and prohibitively expensive, used only for the most important items.

References: the same scene is paralleled on a ‘token’ in Paris (Musée du Louvre AO 26073), and shares similarities to a scene on a bronze pin, also in Paris (Musée du Louvre AO 26068). Certain scholars also see a parallel for the scene in the ‘Shahdad Bronze Standard’ from the BMAC culture and now in Tehran (National Museum of Iran 1049), though this seems to the current author to be debatable.