The article deals with the localization of the Central Asian Dakhs in the era of Alexander the Great. Based on the analysis of written sources, the author comes to the conclusion that during this period the Dakhs in Sogdiana occupied the valley of the Zeravshan River between Samarkand and Bukhara, and in Khorezm - the left bank of the Amu Darya.

In the creative heritage of B. A. Litvinsky, a great place is occupied by research devoted to the study of ancient nomads of Central Asia. Questions of their political, religious and cultural life have always been considered in his works on the basis of a wide range of archaeological, ethnographic, linguistic and narrative sources. The article presented here is a modest gift to the memory of an outstanding scientist, whose collaborator and colleague I was lucky enough to be over the past few years.

Keywords: dakhi (dai), Alexander the Great, Bukhara Sughd, Khorezm.

In the ancient history of Central Asia, along with other nomadic associations, the Dakhs (Dai) tribes played a huge role. It was the latter's conquest of the Seleucid satrapy of Parthia that led to the creation of the Parthian State, which later became - along with Rome, the Great Kushans, and the Han Empire - one of the four superpowers of the ancient world that divided the entire civilized Ecumene from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Therefore, it is quite obvious what significance the reconstruction of the true history of the Dakh confederation will have for understanding the ethno-political processes that took place in Central Asia in ancient times.

The question of what territory the Dakhs occupied in a given period of time can only be solved by a comprehensive analysis of written and archaeological sources. This approach makes it possible first to determine the Dakhs ' habitation sites based on information from ancient authors, and then to link the studied ethnic group with certain types of burial structures common in the same areas. Establishing such a link will allow us to draw conclusions about the presence of Dakhs in other territories where similar monuments have been identified, even if the data of the narrative tradition in this regard is clearly insufficient or completely absent. However, a special article should be devoted to the analysis of archaeological materials.

Researchers have different answers to the question of which areas of Central Asia were occupied by the Dakhs in 331-328 BC, when they fiercely resisted the troops of Alexander the Great. There is an opinion that in this epoch the Dakhs occupied the Ustyurt plateau [Machinsky, 1974, p. 128-129; Bregel, 2003, p. 7]. F. Ya. Koske placed the Dakhs in Turkmenistan: on the Tejen and the left bank of the Amu Darya [Koske, 1962, p. 119, 124]. V. Tomashek believed that at the time of the Dakhs, the Dakhs were located on the left bank of the Amu Darya River [Koske, 1962, p. 119, 124]. Alexandra Dahi was located between the Oxus and Jaxartes, as well as in Ma-

giane [Tomaschek, 1901, sp. 1945] ¹. J. Atkinson described the Dahs as inhabitants of the Yaxart River area [Atkinson, 1980, p. 402]. E. Bosworth believed that the Dahs lived south of Yaxart, between Sughd and Khorasmi [Bosworth, 1980, p.402]. 289; Bosworth, 1995, p. 33]. In the works of I. V. Pyankov, the opinion was repeatedly expressed that the Dakhs (Dai) lived to the north of Tanais [Pyankov, 1964, p. 124, ed. 57; Pyankov, 1979, p. 195, ed. 4; Pyankov, 1997, p. 228; Pyankov, 2002, p. 224]. I. N. Khlopin also placed them there [Khlopin, 1983, p. 149]. A similar opinion is shared by S. G. Klyashtorny, with the only difference being that he assigns the Dakhs and the Aral Sea region [Klyashtorny and Sultanov, 2004, p. 42]. B. A. Litvinsky initially believed that the Dakhs lived northwest of the Chordarya steppe along the Syrdarya River [Litvinsky, 1972, p. 173], but later He accepted the view of I. Volsky [Wolski, 1947, p. 24] on the Dakhs as inhabitants of the Central Asian interfluve [Litvinsky, 1998, p. 328-330].Yu. A. Zadneprovsky, based on the similarity of the Turkmen and Sughd catacombs, concluded that the Dakhs were present in Bukhara Sughd [Zadneprovsky, 1997, p. 101-102]. B. I. Vainberg's point of view, according to which the Dakhs belonged to the Chirikrabat culture in the lower reaches of the Syr Darya, is widely accepted (Vainberg and Levina, 1992, p. 4). 61; Vainberg, 1999, p. 260-264; Stavisky, 1994, p. 270; Mukminova and Filanovich, 2001, p. 13; Bogomolov, 2010, p. 131; Filanovich, 2010, p. 93-94]. According to M. Olbrycht, the Dakhs inhabited the steppes along the banks of the Syrdarya River from Northwestern Sogdiana up to the Aral Sea (Olbrycht, 1998, p. 39, karte 2). V. A. Gaibov and G. A. Koshelenko believe that the Dakhs occupied the right bank of the Lower Syrdarya and, possibly, the north of Sogdiana (Gaibov and Koshelenko, 2005, p. 39). 2]. V. Vogelsang sees the Dakhs as inhabitants of the deserts of northeastern Bactria and eastern Sogd (Vogelsang, 1993, p. 582). M. Khasanov places the Dakhs in Sughd and the Aral Sea region (Khasanov, 2005, p. 107). D. A. Shcheglov believes that Alexander the Great found two great lakes in Central Asia. groups of Dakhs: one inhabited the steppes on the right and left banks of the Syr Darya, and the other-the South-Eastern Caspian region (Shcheglov, 2006, pp. 293-294, 310). Finally, as a curiosity, we will mention the version that under Alexander there were no Dakhs in Central Asia at all: they were still located in the Southern Urals, and participated in the events of 331-328 BC as ordinary mercenaries [Vasiliev and Savelyev, 1993, p.11, 13]². Even this non-exhaustive survey of existing opinions shows that the issue of localizing dakhs is still on the agenda.

The key place to address the question of the territories occupied by the Dahaeans during Alexander's campaign is Arrian's remark about them as "living on this side of Tanais" - δαας τους επι ταδε του ταναιδος ποταμου εποικουντας (Arr. Anab. III. 28.8). I have repeatedly [Balakhvantsev and Nemirovsky, 1999, p. 11; Balakhvantsev, 2005(1), p. 64; Balakhvantsev, 2006(1), p. 395] been forced to dwell on this circumstance, because a very annoying inaccuracy has crept into the widely used translation of M. E. Sergeenko: instead of "from this page". sides of Tanais "in the Russian text stands for" beyond Tanais " [Arrian, 1993, p. 97] ³. Meanwhile, dictionaries translate eπι ταδε "on this side" / "on this side" [Weisman, 1991, p. 510; LSJ, 1996, p. 622]. Similarly, this passage is given in the translations of Alexander's Anabasis into Russian (Bazhenov, 1940, p. 47) and English (Brunt, 1976, p. 323). As is well known, the expression επι ταδε indicates a side closer to the author and his readers, i.e., to Hellas (Bosworth, 1995, p. 223) ^.4 In order to understand what, in addition to indicating proximity to Hellas, is behind these two words,

¹ For a critique of V. Tomasek's statement about the Margian localization of Dakhs, see [Balakhvantsev, 1998, p. 155, note 33].

² This opinion is so contrary to the direct instructions of the sources that it does not even need a special refutation.

³ This error was also corrected by D. A. Shcheglov [2006, p. 292], who, however, did not draw proper conclusions from his observation.

⁴ Statement by D. A. Shcheglov [2006, p. 293, ed. 26], according to which the expression eπι ταδε in Arrian in most cases supposedly means the side closest to the Macedonian army, is erroneous.

It is necessary to analyze several cases of using the expression eπι ταδε, taken both from Arrian himself and from other sources.

First. Arrian mentions that Alexander, while in Syria, appointed Philoxenes to be responsible for collecting taxes in Asia "on this side of the Taurus" (Arr. Anab. III. 6.4), i.e. on the lands located to the north and west of the Taurus mountain range. Interestingly, the same expression is systematically used in written and epigraphic sources (OGIS 219.13; Polyb. XXI. 24.7; Diod. XXIX. 10.1; Memn. FGrH 434 F 15.4) to refer to the Seleucid possessions of Asia Minor, although the boundaries of their domination in this region did not always reach the sea coast. ⁵ But if the same expression was used with equal success to define a complex of territories, the boundaries of which, except for the Taurus, were constantly changing, this can only be explained by the fact that they were already well known to contemporaries.

Second. The same Arrian reports that Alexander ordered all the princes to come to him "from this side of the river" (Arr. Anab. IV. 22.6) and that he appointed Hetair Nicanor satrap of the lands "on this side of the Indus" (Arr. Anab. IV. 28.6). Of course, this was not all about the right Indus coast from the Himalayas to the ocean. From the context of the narrative, it becomes clear that the expression eπι ταδε in this case covers only the territories lying in the traffic lane of the Macedonian army in the Kofena Valley (Kabul) and coinciding with Gandhara (Bosworth, 1995, p. 183).

The third. An inscription from Dionysopolis (48 BC) describes the Birebista empire as extending "on both sides of the Danube" (Syll. ³ 762.24). The inscription, of course, does not imply that the Getae conquered all of Europe, or even the entire Danube Valley. The expression used by the author of the inscription indicates only that the approximate borders of the Birebista state located on the Lower Danube, both southern and northern, were quite well known to his contemporaries.

Fourth. The Emperor Augustus, in his autobiography (A.D. 14), enumerates the peoples who have asked for his friendship, and mentions among them the Sarmatians, who live "on this side of the Tanais" (RGDA. 20). It would be a big mistake to understand the text of the inscription in the sense that the friendship of Augustus was sought by Sarmatians who lived in the territory of modern Voronezh, and even more so Lipetsk or Tula regions; we can only talk about nomads known to the Romans who lived between the Danube and the Lower Don.

From all of the above, one conclusion inevitably follows: the expression eπι ταδε could only apply to those territories whose borders were known to the reader either from the context of the work itself or from other sources. If we take into account that in the IV century BC - I century AD, the areas between the Northern Black Sea Coast and Yaxartes were completely unknown to the Hellenes, then it becomes clear: in Arrian's work, "this side of Tanais" is really equivalent to the left bank of the Syr Darya. At the same time, we can not talk about any territory on the left bank of the Syr Darya, but only about the areas known to Alexander's historians that were located on the route of the Greek-Macedonian army after its crossing of the Oka River.

However, I. V. Pyankov, who adopted the translation "on this side" in his recent works, nevertheless sees here an indication of the right, "European" bank of the river [Litvinsky and Pyankov, 2004, p. 724; Pyankov, 2004, p. 214, note 4] ⁶. In his opinion, the three historians of Alexander-Clitarchus, Ptolemy and Aristobulus, reflecting the ideas peculiar to the Great Macedonian and his soldiers themselves [Thomson, 1953, p. 190; Elnitsky, 1961, p. 105-106], believed that the Don and Syr Darya are one and the same Tanais River, which is the border between Europe and Asia [Pyankov, 1982, p.30; Pyankov, 1997, p. 47-48, 227-228]. Priori-

⁵ For the Seleucid possessions in Asia Minor, see [Ma, 1999, p. 26-52].

⁶ Note that the new translation and the old interpretation of Arrian's words by I. V. Pyankov create a very strange impression that Tanais, like the Mobius strip, had only one right side, which, of course, is impossible, if, of course, we remain within the framework of "Euclidean geography".

tet in the development of this concept belongs to Klitarch, who influenced Aristobulus [Pyankov, 1997, p. 39-42], and through the latter - to Arrian. What can you notice about this? First of all, there is no reason to believe that Arrian shared the geographical concept of Clitarch in any way. Thus, unlike Curtius Rufus, who followed Klitarchus, Arrian was well aware of the difference between the Tanais-Orksant (Syr Darya) and the Tanais (Don), which flowed into the Meotida and was the border between Europe and Asia (Arr. Anab. III. 30.7-9). This explains why Arrian refers to the Scythians living north of Tanais as Asiatic (Arr. Anab. IV. 3.6) ⁷.

Let us now turn to the question of the possible influence of Clitarch's work on Aristobulus. The question of which of the two historians - Clitarchus or Aristobulus - wrote his work earlier, has a very long history in science.⁸ Not being able to solve it here on the merits, I just want to draw attention to one circumstance. Curtius Rufus tells the story of the murder of Spitamen by his own wife, who was then expelled from the Macedonian camp by Alexander, who was outraged by her crime (Curt. VIII. 3.1-15). According to the general opinion, this story is borrowed from Clitarchus ⁹ and is completely fictional: otherwise, it is unlikely that the daughter of Spitamen Apama could have become the wife of one of the closest associates of the king - Seleucus. Meanwhile, Clitarch's fabricated version of Spitamen's murder was intended not only to shock the gullible reader, but also to compromise Antiochus I Soter, who, through his mother Apama, was the grandson of a manslayer. It is clear that the appearance of this passage in such a pro-Ptolemaic work as Klitarch's [Marinovich, 1993, p.32] could have occurred only with the permission of the Alexandrian court and only during a period of sharp aggravation of relations between the Lagids and Seleucids. But in 290-280 BC, Ptolemy I and Seleucus I formed an alliance, cemented by the threat of Demetrius Poliorcetes (Holbl, 2001, p. 24). The conditions that made it possible and even desirable for Clitarchus to attack Seleucus ' heir did not arise until 280 BC, when the war of the "Syrian succession"broke out between Ptolemy II and Antiochus I. ¹⁰ Since Aristobulus 'creation of his work is attributed to the period no later than 275 BC [Pyankov, 1997, p. 40]¹¹, the possibility of Klitarchus' influence on it seems unlikely.

However, even more important is the answer to the question: could Aristobulus, as well as any other participant in the campaign, in principle share the geographical scheme of Klitarch ¹², in which Areia is located north of Hyrcania, Arachosia is located north of Areia, and Drangiana is located north of Arachosia? Could any of the Macedonians who were marching from Bactra to the Maracandas, i.e. in a general northward direction, think that they were going west? Although Alexander's soldiers did not have a compass, they knew where the cardinal directions were as well as the former mercenaries of Cyrus the Younger (Xen. Anab. V. 7.6). Therefore, the version that the geographical concept of Klitarch was shared by the participants of Alexander's campaign looks absolutely unconvincing.

Finally, this version simply contradicts the known facts. Thus, Hares of Mytilene, describing the love story of Zariadr, who reigned over the lands from the Caspian Gate to Tanais, and Odathis, the daughter of Omartes, king of the Marathas, who lived "on the other side of Tanais, "remarks that" Odathis was the most beautiful woman in all Asia "(Athen. 13.35=Chares FGrH 125 F 5). Thus, Hares did not believe that the Central Asian Tanais served as a border between Europe and Asia. The Testimony of Hares of Mytilene

⁷ For the difficulties that arise in interpreting this evidence, which are encountered by researchers who accept the existence of a common geographical scheme for Klitarch and Aristobulus, see: Gardiner-Garden, 1987, p. 38; Bosworth, 1995, p. 22; Pyankov, 1997, p.47; Shcheglov, 2006, p. 289-291].

⁸ See [Marinovich, 1993, pp. 30-34; Pyankov, 1997, pp. 37-42].

⁴ See [Shcheglov, 2006, p. 303].

¹⁰ For the Syrian-Egyptian relations in the 70s of the 111th century BC, see [Holbl, 2001, p. 37-40].

¹¹ Of course, this date is very conditional.

¹² For more information, see [Goukowsky, 1978, p. 155-159; Gaibov and Koshelenko, 2005, p. 115, Fig.

It is of particular importance, since its author was never particularly interested in geography and simply reproduced the views adopted among Alexander's associates.

But how then can we explain the claims of a number of sources (Plin. NH. VI. 49; Plut. Al. 45.4) that Alexander mistook Jaxartes (Orexartes) for Tanais? The answer to this question was already given two thousand years ago by Strabo, who believed that Jaxartes was declared Tanais, and the Caspian Sea was united with Maeotis in order to present Alexander as the conqueror of all Asia (Strabo. XI. 7.4). Meanwhile, Aristobulus, a member of Alexander's campaign, knew that the locals called the Central Asian Tanais Yaxart (Arr. Anab. III. 30.7), and Alexander himself, at the end of his life, was just going to explore which sea the Caspian Sea connects to (Arr. Anab. VII. 16.2).

From all that has been said above, one conclusion follows: Arrian's remark about the Dakhs "living on this side of Tanais", which I have considered, clearly indicates that they inhabited the area between the Oxus and Yaxartes rivers, and they never existed to the north of the latter. This conclusion is also confirmed by the testimony of Curtius Rufus, who distinguishes between the Dakhs and the Scythians "living beyond the Tanais River" (Curt. VII. 4.6).

To clarify the question of the areas occupied by Dakhs within the Central Asian interfluve, attention should be paid to a number of circumstances. First, Arrian, who relied on the data of Aristobulus (Bosworth, 1980, p. 290), mentions Sogdians among the detachments that came to the Gavgamels on the orders of Darius (Arr. Anab. III. 8.3), but when describing the Persian order of battle, the Sogdians disappear somewhere, but the Dai appear instead (Arr. Anab. III. 11.3). This, at least, suggests that the Dai were residents of Sogd. Secondly, in the campaigns of 329 and 328 BC, the Dakhs opposed the Macedonians in the Polytimeta Valley and the vicinity of Marakand (Curt. VII. 7.31-39, VIII. 1. 6; Arr. Anab. IV 5.2-6.2). Third, the Dai, unlike the Khorasmians, who were limited to verbal assurances of their submission, fell into such a strong subordination to Alexander (Curt. VIII. 3.16) that were forced to take part in the Indian campaign (Curt. VIII. 14. 5, IX. 2. 24; Arr. Anab. V. 12.2). Consequently, the territory of the Dakhs was more accessible and vulnerable to Alexander than Khorezm. Fourth, according to Curtius Rufus and Arrian, Alexander spent the winter of 328/7 BC. in Nautaka (Curt. VIII. 2.19; Arr. Anab. IV 18.1), from which he intended to march against the Dahs (Curt. VIII. 3.1). Rarely used, but sometimes containing unique information, the Epitome of Alexander's Deeds states that the tsar even set out on this campaign from Xenippe and reached the region of Dakhov (Metz Epit. 19-20). Since it has long been established that Xenippe was located in the lower reaches of Kashkadarya, and Nautaka occupied the upper part of the valley of this river [Kabanov, 1962, p. 53; Bosworth, 1980, p. 372; Grenet and Rapin, 1998, p. 89, n. 42; Rapin, 2007, p. 30, fig. I]¹⁴, then the "Epitome" information appears to be more accurate. But in this case, the region of dakhs can only be Bukhara Sughd. Fifth, Arrian's mention (Arr. Anab. III. 28.10) the Dai "from Tanais" - Δααιοι απο του ταναιδος-can hardly be understood as evidence of their presence exclusively on the banks of this river. The same Arrian defines Cappadocia of the Diadochi period as a region extending north "from Mount Taurus" - απο του Ταυρου (Arr. Succ. F 1. 37 Roos). But Cappadocia, as we know, covered not only the northern slopes of the Taurus Mountains. Therefore, this expression once again confirms the conclusion already made earlier that Tanais was only the extreme north-eastern border of the Dakhov region. So, in view of all the above, the main habitat of the dakhs known to Alexander and his historians should be recognized as the Zeravshan Valley between Samarkand and Bukhara, paying special attention to the latter. The fact that even in the Middle Ages the names Δax, Δaxānak, Δaxč, and Δaxzāte were preserved in Sogdian onomastics shows how close and deep the ties between the Dakhs and the Sogdians were.

¹³ These must have been Sogdians, for the Scythians called Tanais Silis (Plin. NH. VI. 49).

¹⁴ Attempt by D. A. Shcheglov [2006, p. 284, ed. 7] the assignment of Nautaka to the mountainous regions east of the Hissar range can hardly be considered successful: the mountains are an extremely inconvenient place for wintering.

¹⁵ See [Lurje, 2010, p. 185-186]. I would like to take this opportunity to once again express my sincere gratitude to P. B. Lurie for the information provided.

However, there is evidence in the ancient tradition that suggests that the Polytimeta Valley was not the only area where the Dakhs lived. The fact is that the dakhs are not just mentioned together with the Khorasmas (lust. XII. 6.17; Oros. III. 18.11), but also - along with the Massagetae-were included by Curtius Rufus in the list of tribes whose submission to Alexander was declared in 328 BC by the ruler of Khorezm Frataphernes (Curt. VIII. 1.8) ¹⁶. These Dakhs may have been allies of Khorezm (Rapoport, 1998, p. 34) and, of course, could not possibly have been Dakhs-inhabitants of Sogd: the latter were subordinate to the Bactrian satrap of the Achaemenids (Arr. Anab. III. 8.3, 11.3)¹⁷, and the Macedonians will still fight them a few months. To clarify the localization of the Khorezmian dakhs, we should pay attention to one more circumstance. Strabo, describing the situation in the first half of the third century BC18, points out that one of the Dakhi tribes, the Aparni, is separated from Hyrcania, Nesaia, Parthia, and Areia by a waterless desert (Strabo. XI. 7.1, 8.3). If we take into account that when raiding more southern regions, the Aparni did not have to cross the Oka River, then we can conclude that they lived on the outskirts of the Left-bank Khorezm¹⁹. Local written sources also indicate the spread of Dakhs in Khorezm during this period. So, in the list of names found in the Burlykala fortress, there is a name-the Sword of the Dakhs. Taking into account the archaeological context of the find and the dating possibilities of epigraphy, the inscription can be attributed to the IV-II centuries BC [Manylov and Khozhaniyazov, 1981, p. 44; Livshits and Mambetullaev, 1986, p. 40-12; Livshits, 2002, p. 55].

Thus, written sources indicate that in the era of Alexander the Great, the Dakhs ' habitation zone in Central Asia included part of Sogdiana (the Zeravshan Valley) and the outskirts of the Left-bank Khorezm (the Sarykamysh delta of the Amu Darya).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

FGrH - Fragmente der griechischen Historiker / Hrsg. von F. Jacoby. Berlin-Lcidcn, 1923.

LSJ - A Greek-English Lexicon. Compiled by Henry George Liddel and Robert Scott. Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

OGIS - Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectac. Leipzig: apud S. Hirzel, 1903-1905.

RGDA - Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

Syll.³ - Sylloge inscriptionum Graccarum / Ed. G. Dittenberger. Ed. 3. Leipzig, 1915.

list of literature

Arriane. Alexander's Campaign / Translated from the Ancient Greek by M. E. Sergeenko, St. Petersburg: Alstsya Publ., 1993. Balakhvantsv A. S. Dakhi and arias by Tacitus // Vestnik drevnoi istorii [Bulletin of Ancient History], Moscow, 1998, No. 2.

Balakhvantsev A. S. Central Asian Dakhs in the IV-II centuries BC: origin, chronology and localization // Central Asia from the Achaemenids to the Timurids: archeology, history, ethnology, culture. Materials Between-

¹⁶ Arrian reports that Alexander was personally visited by the King of Khorezm, Farasman (Arr. Anab. IV. 15.4). Yu. A. Rapoport is inclined to believe that Farasman was the son of Fratafsrn and was named king "for the greater glory of Alexander" (Rapoport, 1998, p. 34). However, as I have already noted [Balakhvantsv, 2006(2), p. 373], Alexander's companions and future historians did not at all seek to glorify him by proclaiming any tribal leader who appeared to the Macedonians as king and awarded the royal title only to those rulers whose power and independence did not cause any doubts. Therefore, naming the Khwarezmian ruler king served not so much the glory of Alexander as the honor of Farasman. Apparently, at the time of sending the embassy, the ruler of Khorezm was Frataphernes, who died during the stay of his son Pharasmanus with the Macedonians, after which Alexander recognized the latter's right to the royal title.

¹⁷ Contrary to the opinion of some authors [Atkinson, 1980, p. 402; Gaibov and Koshelenko, 2005, p. 120; Shcheglov, 2006, p. 286], there is no reason to consider them not subjects, but only allies of Darius III.

¹⁸ This date is based on the fact that, according to the same source (Strabo. XI. 9.2), on the eve of Arshak's invasion of Parthia (c.238 BC), the Aparnas were already living much further south, on the banks of the Ox (Atrska and Sumbara). On the localization of Oa, see [Balakhvantsv, 2005 (2), p. 184].

¹⁹ Cf.: [Shcheglov 2006, p. 310, ed. 47. The researcher believes that the Dakhs of Spitamen, neighbors of the Khorasmians, lived in the South-Eastern Caspian region already in the era of Alexander, if not earlier.

people's Scientific conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of A.M. Belenitsky / V. P. Nikonorov (ed.). SPb., 2005 (1).

Central Asia: sources, History, Culture: materials of the International Scientific Conference dedicated to the 80th anniversary of Doctor of Historical Sciences E. A. Davidovich and full member of the Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences B. A. Litvinsky / E. V. Antonova, T. K. Mkrtychev (Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 2005 (2).

Balakhvantsev A. S. Aleksandar Makedonskiy i dakhi [Alexander the Great and Dakhi] / / Istoricheskoe znanie: teoreticheskie osnovaniya i kommunikativnye praktiki. Proceedings of the Scientific Conference / O. L. Gablko (ed.). Moscow, 2006 (1).

Balakhvantsev A. S. K voprosu o vremya otpadeniya Khorezma ot derzhavy Akhemenidov: istochnikovedcheskiy aspekt [On the question of the time of the fall of Khorezm from the Achaemenid Empire: a source study aspect]. Zapiski Vostochnogo otdeliya Rossiiskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, vol. 11, St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2006 (2).

Balakhvantsev A. S., Nemirovskiy A. A. Dakhi ot Dariya do Arshak: narrativnaya traditsiya i arkheologicheskiy kontekst [Dakhs from Darius to Arshak: Narrative tradition and archaeological context].

Bazhenov L. V. Ancient authors about Central Asia. Tashkent, 1940.

Ancient Cultures of Eurasia: materials of the International scientific conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of A. N. Bernshtam / V. A. Alekshin, L. B. Kircho, L. A. Sokolova, V. Ya. Stegantseva (eds.). SPb., 2010.

Vainberg B. I. Etnogeografiya Turana v drevnosti [Ethnogeography of Turan in ancient times]. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 1999.

Vainberg B. I., Levina L. M. Chirikrabat culture in the lower reaches of the Syrdarya River. Moshkova M. G. Stepnaya polosa Asiaticheskoi chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmaticheskoe vremya [The steppe strip of the Asian part of the USSR in the Scythian-Sarmatian time]. Moscow: Nauka, 1992.

Vasiliev V. N., Savelyev N. S. Early Dakhs of the Southern Urals based on written sources. Ufa, 1993.

Weisman A.D. Greek-Russian Dictionary, Moscow, 1991.

Gaibov V. A., Koshelenko G. A. Nomads of Central Asia in the era of Alexander the Great (Data from written sources) / / Bulletin of Ancient History, Moscow, 2005. N 1.

Elnitsky L. A. Znanie drevnykh o severnykh stranakh [Ancient Knowledge of the Northern Countries]. Moscow: Publishing House of Geographical Literature, 1961.

Zadneprovsky Yu. A. Ancient Nomads of Central Asia. St. Petersburg, 1997.

Kabanov S. K. Keramicheskiy kompleks iz naslozheniy drevnego gorodishche v Kitaba [Ceramic complex of strata of an ancient settlement in Kitab]. Issue 3. Tashkent, 1962.

Klyashtorny S. G., Sultanov T. I. Gosudarstva i narody Evraziyskikh steppei [States and peoples of the Eurasian steppes]. Antiquity and the Middle Ages. St. Petersburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie Publ., 2004.

Tribes of Northern Parthia in the fight against the Macedonian conquest // Bulletin of Ancient History. 1962. N 1.

Livshits V. A. Three silver bowls from the Isakov burial ground No. 1. Vestnik drevnoi istorii [Bulletin of Ancient History]. 2002. N2.

Livshits V. A., Mambetullaev M. M. Ostrak iz Khumbuz-tepe // Monuments of history and literature of the East / G. F. Gire, E. A. Davidovich, M.-N. O. Osmanov (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, 1986.

Litvinsky B. A. Ancient nomads "Roofs of the World", Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1972.

Litvinsky B. A. Central Asia in the Seleucid period // Istoriya tadzhikskogo naroda [History of the Tajik people] / R. M. Masov (ed.). Vol. 1. Dushanbe, 1998.

Litvinsky B. A., Pyankov I. V. Central Asia in the Achaemenid period // Istoriya Drevnogo Vostoka: Ot rannykh gosudarstvennykh obrazovaniy do drevnykh imperiy [History of the Ancient East: From Early state Formations to Ancient Empires].

Manylov Yu. P., Khozhaniyazov G. The ancient settlements of Ayazkala 1 and Burlykala (To the study of the fortification of ancient Khorezm) / / Archaeological research in Karakalpakia / I. K. Kosymbetov, V. N. Yagodin (eds.). Tashkent: Fan, 1981.

Marinovich L. P. The Greeks and Alexander the Great (on the problem of the Polis crisis), Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1993.

Machinsky D. A. Nekotorye problemy etnografii vostochno-evropeiskikh steppei v II v. B.C. - I v. N.E. [Some problems of ethnography of Eastern European steppes in the II century BC-I century AD]. Issue No. 16. L., 1974.

Mukminova R. G., Filanovich M. I. Tashkent at the crossroads of history (essays on the ancient and medieval history of the city). Tashkent: Fan Publ., 2001.

Pyankov I. V. K voprosu o rut pokhoda Kira II na massagetov [To the question of the route of the campaign of Cyrus II on Massagetov].

Pyankov I. V. On the ways of penetration of Iranian-speaking tribes in Central Asia // Peredneaziatskiy sbornik [Near Asian Collection]. III. Dandamaev M. A., Livshits V. A. Istoriya i filologiya stran drevnego Vostoka [History and Philology of the Ancient East countries]. Moscow: Nauka, 1979.

Pyankov I. V. Bactria in the ancient tradition. Dushanbe: Donish, 1982.

Pyankov I. V. Srednaya Aziya v antichnoi geograficheskoi traditsii [Central Asia in the Ancient Geographical tradition]. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 1997.

Пьянков И. В.: [Рец.] Olbrycht M. 1998: Parthia et ulteriores gentes: die politischen Bezichungcn zwischen dem arsakidischen Iran und den Nomaden der eurasischen Steppen. Munchen // Vestnik drevnoi istorii [Bulletin of Ancient History], Moscow, 2002, No. 3.

Pyankov I. V. Some controversial issues of "Ethnogeography of Turan": polemic of an archaeologist with philologists? / Vestnik drevnoi istorii [Bulletin of Ancient History], Moscow, 2004, No. 4.

Rapoport Yu.A. Kratkiy ocherk istorii Khorezma v drevnosti [A brief sketch of the history of Khorezm in ancient times]. K 60-letiyu Khorezmskoy arkheologo-etnograficheskoy expeditsii [To the 60th anniversary of the Khorezm archaeological and ethnographic expedition]. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 1998.

Stavisky B. Ya. Central Asia in the Achaemenid era // Istoriya tadzhikskogo naroda [History of the Tajik people] / R. M. Masov (ed.). Vol. 1. Dushanbe, 1998.

Thomson J. O. Istoriya drevnoi geografii [History of Ancient Geography]. Moscow: Publishing House of Foreign Literature, 1953.

Filanovich M. I. Ancient and medieval history of Tashkent in archaeological sources. Tashkent: Fan Publ., 2010.

Khasanov M. K localizatsii dakhov v Srednoi Azii [On the localization of Dakhs in Central Asia]. Samarkand, 2005.

Khlopin I. N. Historical geography of the southern regions of Central Asia (antiquity and early Middle Ages). Ashgabat: Ylym Publ., 1983.

Shcheglov D. A. Nomadic peoples of Central Asia according to the data of historians of Alexander the Great / / Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society, vol. II. SPb.: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2006.

A Greek-English Lexicon. Compiled by Henry George Liddel and Robert Scott. Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Arrian. Anabasis Alexandri. Indika / With an English Translation by P.A. Brunt. Vol. I. L.-Cambr. (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1976.

Atkinson J.E. A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus'Historiae Alexandri Magni. Books 3 and 4. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1980.

Bosworth A.B. A Historical Commentary on Arrian s History of Alexander. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.

Bosworth A.B. A Historical Commentary on Arrian s History of Alexander. Vol. 11. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Bregel Y. An Historical Atlas of Central Asia. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Gardiner-Garden J.R. Greek Conceptions on Inner Asian Geography and Ethnography from Ephoros to Eratosthenes. Bloomington: University Press, 1987.

Goukowsky P. Essai sur les origines du mythe d'Alexandre. T. 1. Nancy: Publ. par la Facultc des letters ct des sciences humaincs dc Г Univ. dc Nancy, 1978.

Grenet F., Rapin C. Alexander, Aї IChanum, Termez: Remarks on the Spring Campain of 328 // Bulletin of the Asia Institute. Vol. 12. Bloomfield Hills, 1998.

Holbl G. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire. L.: Routledge, 2001.

Lurjc P.B. Personal Names in Sogdian Texts. Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010.

Ma J. Antiochos III and the cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

Olbrycht M. Parthia et ulteriores gentes: die politischen Beziehungen zwischen dem arsakidischen Iran und den Nomaden der eurasischen Steppen. Munchcn: tuduv-Verl. -Gcs., 1998.

Rapin C. Nomads and the Shaping of Central Asia: from the Early Iron Age to the Kushan Period // After Alexander. Central Asia before Islam / J. Cribb, G. Herrmann (eds.). Oxford: University Press, 2007.

Tomaschek W. Daai // Pauly's Real-Encyklopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ncuc Bcarbeitung begonnen von G. Wissowa. Hrsg. von W. Kroll. Stuttgart, 1901. Bd. 4.

Vogelsang W. Dahac II // Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 6. N.Y., 1993.

Wolski J. L'effondrement de la domination des Seleucides en Iran au III-c siccle av. J.-C. // Bulletin International de I 'Academic Polonaise des Sciences et des Lettres. Cracovic, 1947. Supplement N 5.

Permanent link to this publication: