Monstrous Figurines, of BMAC, and the Dragon Myth: From a Meteoritic Headband to Rig Veda Mythology

Abstract

Oxus “Scarface”, a small statuette from the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex culture (Middle Bronze Age of Central Asia) preserved at the Metropolitan Museum (New York), wears a meteoritic iron headband like a comparable specimen preserved in Le Louvre Museum (Paris), as shown by XRF analyses of the headband. This implement could be crucial for the interpretation of these elusive figures. It could be the symbolic material for the retention of water by these monstrous creatures of the underworld, retainers of spring water, as is recorded in the Rig Veda, a myth in agreement with the problematics of agriculture in a semi-arid context. Accordingly, the scars across their faces are the deadly “split across the head” through which the water was released. The convergence of this culture of elamitic affinity with an Indo-Aryan myth suggests some hybridization between the two cultures.

1. Introduction

Archaeological data on Central Asia were for a long time limited to periods after the conquest of Alexander the Great, partly because of the lack of textual documentation, unlike the entire vast region located further southwest, the cradle of the writing. It is only in the last fifty years that we have begun to glimpse the contours of a particularly brilliant culture extant between approximately 2300 and 1700 BC.

It is remarkable to note that the first witnesses were a few composite statuettes appearing in auction rooms in the 1960s, when it was unclear to whom these masterpieces should be attributed [1]. Among those are two remarkable statuettes of dragons with a monstrous, male-like appearance with the nickname of “Scarface”, which are on display at the Metropolitan Museum (New York) and the Louvre (Paris). Following excavations carried out by the Soviets in Central Asia, first in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan at the end of the 1960s and then in Turkmenistan from the 1970s onwards, several clues argue for a connection of the “Scarface Monsters” to a Bronze Age culture, variously named according to scholars. Francfort [2] who is the French specialist, spoke of the Oxus Civilization, while Sarianidi [3], who is the main discoverer, proposed BMAC for Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex.

These two statuettes have been acquired by prestigious museums, one by the Metropolitan Museum in New York and his alter ego by Le Louvre Museum in Paris. These two specimens wear a unique accessory on their heads, namely an iron headband. Such convergence, which can only be authentic, can in no way be trivial.

I have recently been able to argue that iron metallurgy appeared in the Near East at the beginning of the 12th century BC and that every older Bronze Age iron is made of meteoritic iron [4]. To date, very few analyses exist to validate this argument, even though not a single reliable analysis supports the opposite view. I will not repeat this argument here, but it is quite obvious that the analysis of more Bronze Age iron objects would be extremely useful to support this paradigm. If the headband of the specimen kept at the Louvre is announced as meteoritic (on-line inventory and [5]), no analysis confirming this evidence has been published to date.

Several authors have attempted a review of iron objects from this period [6,7,8,9]. More than a hundred objects are thus mentioned, but few have been analyzed. Old analyses are often poorly documented: they lack information on sampling, their analytical techniques not described, and their precision is not given. The results are often presented in a qualitative, even laconic way. Finally, successive analyses have sometimes provided contradictory results. I have shown that corrosion has a significant effect on the analytical results, and this must be taken into account for such as sensitive material. Therefore, the quantity of nickel contained in the objects is not in itself a sufficient criterion to decide on the meteoritic origin (or not), of corroded archaeological iron [4].

Unfortunately, some of the objects cited in ancient literature are now lost or inaccessible. The Bronze Age iron objects that have given rise to a reliable and documented analysis being less than twenty, any new analysis is currently welcome. Preliminary analyses in New York and Paris have shown that the metal bands on the heads of the Scarfaces are indeed made of iron, in keeping with their rusty appearances. The significance of these statuettes is enigmatic and subject to speculation without factual evidence. The objective of this work is therefore to clarify whether the iron’s nature is indeed meteoritic, and more importantly to discuss its significance. Unexpectedly, some of the oldest Indo-European texts, namely the Rig Veda, document the myth of a dragon slain by Indra with some strong convergence which cannot be fortuitous.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. A Short Presentation of the Two Specimens

The Met specimen (2010.166) is 10.4 × 5.2 × 3.5 cm, in the range of standard sizes for comparable statuettes. The composite construction used to create the figures (Figure 1), achieved by using tangs to join together several sections of differing materials and colors, is typical of the BMAC culture. However, most representations of the kind are women, and the materials used for the monsters, the rare male figures, can be viewed as negatives: calcite is used for the gown instead of for the skinny parts (as it is used in female figurines) with traces of gold. The scaled skinned body is made of chlorite/serpentine; this same material is used for the dresses of female figurines. The scales are arranged in a horizontally lined pattern. The Met specimen carries a jar under his right arm. Most noticeable is a deep cut across his face, whence the nickname of “Scarface”. Two holes above and below the lips suggest the emplacement of some sort of a padlock.

Le Louvre specimen (AO 21104) is topologically similar (13 × 5 × 3 cm) [10]. The scales are arranged in a random pattern. He carries a jar under his left arm. The fore front is slightly damaged, and the headband is henceforth interrupted. Notice that the feet are missing on both specimens.

2.2. Analytical Methods

After optical observations, XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) analyses of the headband were performed at the Met Museum in New York. An ARTAX 400 micro XRF equipment from Bruker (Ettlingen, Germany) was used, equipped with an Rh X-ray tube operated at 50 kV and 700 µA, with an unfiltered beam focused at 0.65 mm. The spectra were acquired for 180 s. To precisely calibrate the results, meteorite references (Cape York, Coahuila, and Hoba, on loan from the American Museum of National History, New York), and another iron meteorite (JFP used routinely for calibration of XRF data [4]) were analyzed under the same conditions. In addition, two synthetic Fe:Ni alloys with 30 and 17% Ni (ROC17 and ROC30) were used with low Co concentrations. For each specimen, three replicate measurements were performed. The PyMCA software (version 3.9.4) of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) was used to obtain concentrations from the spectra [11].

According to the very good agreement with the published values for the references, the results for Fe and Ni did not require corrections. The results for Co, however, were not completely satisfactory, partly (but not only) because of an inappropriate background correction at low Co levels, resulting in a non-zero intercept of the calibration with the reference specimens.

The good quality of the correlation, however, permitted us to calibrate the results to obtain concentrations in agreement with the reference values. To check the reliability of this procedure, we calculated the Co concentration after spectral calibration of the peak intensity (Co Kalpha) to the Fe Kbeta peak, taking proper care of the background. The concentrations using either method are consistent within errors which we estimate to ±20% (see OSM Appendix A).

The reproducibility for Fe and Ni in the meteorites was about ±0.4% (2 sigma values), this being due mostly to specimen heterogeneity. For the synthetic specimens, the reproducibility for both Fe and Ni was 0.2 and 0.06% in ROC30 and ROC17, respectively. For Co, the reproducibility was good on the natural specimens e.g., JFP 0.02% for concentrations of about 0.5% (

Table 1. Analytical results of five spots on the headband (wt. %). Light elements belong to the substrate or represent minor contamination at the surface. All results calculated using PYMCA software without calibration. Normalized to 100% oxygen free.

	A	B	C	D	E
Si	7.72	5.59	11.43	11.49	12.13
S	0.74	1.12	0.87	0.92	0.75
K	0.49	0.54	1.43	1.39	1.30
Ca	2.92	9.18	1.77	2.05	2.33
Ti	0.13	0.13	0.25	0.25	0.21
V	0.25	0.28	0.25	0.31	0.32
Cr	0.06	0.06	0.07	0.07	0.06
Mn	0.08	0.10	0.16	0.12	0.12
Fe	81.82	76.48	78.85	78.00	78.17
Co	0.29	0.28	0.28	0.38	0.37
Ni	4.87	5.15	3.77	4.11	3.46
Cu	0.30	0.65	0.40	0.45	0.36
Zn	0.16	0.21	0.27	0.25	0.22
As	0.13	0.15	0.15	0.16	0.14
Total	99.95	99.93	99.95	99.95	99.95

) the accuracy being about ±20%.

The measured overall compositions contain light elements which do not belong to the metal headband and might originate from adventitious soil particulate trapped within corrosion products of the iron or the underlying substrate. In the absence of an appropriate reference for the particular analytical conditions, we did not try to calibrate the results for the rock substrate accurately, and the results for the light elements should be considered as qualitative.

3. Results

Observation of the headband of the Met specimen shows an oxidized band which overlaps the surrounding rock material. High magnification pictures of the band show, where it is nearly intact, a regular and oxidized surface which overflowed significantly on either side of the band, as evidenced by traces of rust. At the places where the oxidized superficial layer was scratched off (probably following a recent cleaning when it was put up for sale), we can see that a gutter was carved out to insert a meteoritic wire. Wherever the superficial oxide is missing, the underlying oxidized metal cropping out displays some banding along a strike of about 0.1–0.2 mm in width. This banded structure approximately evokes the Widmanstätten pattern encountered in most iron meteorites, the particular orientation resulting probably from the deformation by elongation upon the smithing of the headband.

Le Louvre’s specimen shows a very similar aspect, but the underlying rock seems to have been slightly more damaged. (Figure 2).

Results of the chemical analyses of five spots (A–E) of the Met specimen are presented in Table 1. Part of the obtained composition is from the silicate substrate.

If the headband is indeed iron (more or less oxidized) it is more interesting to consider the results recalculated as metal (substrate, oxygen and trivial contaminations subtracted), as seen in

Table 2. Analytical results. To enable a comparison with meteoritic specimens, the compositions are calculated after removal of elements not contained in the metal initially and oxygen as well. The results are normalized to 100 wt. %. The only element showing a significant discrepancy is Ca possibly contained in secondary carbonate.

	Matrix	A	B	C	D	E	Average
Si	52.59	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
S	4.72	0.05	0.69	−0.20	−0.14	−0.43	−0.01
K	6.18	−0.49	−0.13	0.11	0.05	−0.16	−0.13
Ca	9.22	1.83	9.18	−0.30	0.05	0.26	2.20
Ti	1.08	−0.03	0.02	0.02	0.02	−0.05	0.00
V	1.33	0.07	0.16	−0.05	0.02	0.02	0.05
Cr	0.29	0.02	0.04	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01
Mn	0.61	−0.01	0.04	0.04	−0.01	−0.02	0.01
Fe	16.82	93.00	83.57	96.08	95.11	96.57	92.87
Co	0.00	0.34	0.31	0.35	0.48	0.48	0.39
Ni	0.00	5.70	5.77	4.82	5.26	4.49	5.21
Cu	2.31	−0.05	0.45	−0.13	−0.07	−0.23	−0.01
Zn	1.11	0.00	0.11	0.04	0.01	−0.05	0.02
As	0.67	0.04	0.09	0.00	0.02	−0.02	0.03
Cd	0.22	0.02	0.06	0.01	0.00	−0.01	0.02
SUM	97.14	100.49	100.34	100.79	100.80	100.86	100.66

.

The iron content is then 92.8% (±0.9), the remainder being essentially nickel 5.03 ± 0.81% and cobalt 0.38 ± 0.08%. This composition is typical of a meteoric iron, even though the corrosion has certainly altered the initial composition. It is worth noticing the high concentration of copper and zinc in the matrix. This could be the contribution of a Cu:Zn alloy used to incorporate the iron band tightly.

As such, it is interesting to report these results in a Ni/Fe vs. Ni/Co diagram (Figure 3), which makes it possible to see the effect of corrosion [4]. A positive correlation between these two ratios is conspicuous, as has previously been observed for other meteoritic iron artifacts, highlighting the simultaneous decrease in the Ni/Fe and Ni/Co ratios, and therefore the loss of Ni during corrosion, the Fe/Co being meteoritic [4,12,13].

In the present case, trace elements, like gallium, germanium, etc., cannot be considered to characterize more precisely the type of meteorite used because of the contribution of the substrate to the analytical results.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Metal

According to the analytical results, it appears undisputable that the headband is made of meteoritic iron. As shown by Goldstein, there is a relationship between the characteristic dimension of Widmanstätten bands and the nickel content of kamacite (Ni-poor iron crystals) in meteorites [14]. This relationship, however cannot be applied in the case of archaeological objects for two reasons: (1) the shaping of the objects (hammering) deforms the Widmanstätten pattern, the bands becoming thinner without changing the composition. (2) Corrosion decreases the nickel content of the iron alloy. A width of the bands on the order of 0.1 mm, as observed, should correspond to an initial Ni content of the kamacite of about 7% (>6.8%) in a fresh meteorite, and therefore a value higher than that for the average composition of the metal (kamacite + taenite) before corrosion, with a larger bandwidth before hammering. This indicates that the highest nickel content of 5.64% is certainly lower than the initial content. For a nickel content of 6% in the kamacite, the initial dimension of the Widmanstätten bands should be less than 10 μm and would remain unnoticeable after hot deformation. This hot working is mandatory for a headband whose aspect ratio is greater than 20, indicating that at that time iron working was already fairly well mastered, unlike the case at the beginning of the Bronze Age (as illustrated by the Gerzeh beads [15,16]).

There is obviously the question of the similarity with the specimen of Le Louvre, which also wears an iron headband. The unpublished analyses carried out at the C2RMF (Paris), indicate a much higher Ni content (approximately 10%) but an observed banding width of the same scale as on the Met specimen (Figure 2) [5]. For a 10% Ni content, the bandwidth before deformation should exceed one mm. This suggests that the specimen from Le Louvre is less corroded and that the composition of the Met specimen was originally probably quite comparable, in agreement with the composition/structure relationship [14]. Still, the significant effect of corrosion does not allow us to say with certainty that the two headbands were made from the same meteorite, though this is entirely possible.

4.2. The Significance of the Iron Headband

As will be seen below (also Appendix B OSM) the dragon can be related to Vritra of the Rig Veda, the retainer of the water in the underworld. In many cultures, meteoritic iron materializes in the sky, which contains rainwater, as opposed to the Earth, which contains groundwater. Iron is therefore the material of the reservoir which contains this celestial water and the one which retains the water underground, symbolically of a comparable nature. It is therefore possible that this meteoritic iron is an essential attribute of the dragon who holds water captive in the underworld.

4.3. The Relationship with the Indo-European Myth of the Dragon (See Appendix B OSM)

Watkins argued convincingly in favor of a specific Indo-European (IE) myth of the dragon, based on purely linguistic arguments [17,18]. The oldest written record of this myth is found in the Rig Veda. More recent versions of the myth in other IE groups, however, differ significantly, possibly after a long evolution.

The chthonic character of the Oxus statuettes, their demonic allure, their snakeskin, the jar held under the arm and the split across the face are all characteristics shared with the Indo-Aryan myth. The culture of the Oxus is one of a sedentary population based on agriculture, and therefore crucially dependent on water resources in a region where it can be problematic in certain years. The myth of a dragon having captured the waters to hide them underground fits perfectly with this cultural type. Despite the early proposals of Sarianidi [3], this culture does not seem to be Indo-European [19], as is further supported by more recent genomic studies [20]. It rather exhibits some Elamite affinity (e.g., [21]). The accordance of the Oxus dragons with an Indo-European myth and more specifically the one described in the Rig Veda suggests some reciprocal cultural hybridization, since the Vedic myth contains elements relating to the Oxus culture as well [21,22]. I claim that cultural hybridization, which is a more general and better-defined concept, should be preferred to the Kulturkugel concept of Mallory [19]. This likely occurred during the migration of Indo-Iranian people from Central Asia (Andronovo culture) to Northwest India and Iran [19]. Specificities of the Oxus dragons, however, such as the pierced lips and the iron headband, remain unsupported by the Vedic version of the myth.

Interestingly, the analyses of Francfort [2] and Vidale [23] reach comparable conclusions. They underscore the seasonal role of the water-concealing dragon. Other features of the statuette have not been mentioned as yet since they are partly hypothetical and based on comparisons with other artifacts. There are two holes, one in front and one in the back, which were supposedly fitted with horns and wings. Deer antlers, which fall at the end of autumn, are a symbol of the rebirth of vegetation in spring, when they grow again. On the statuette, the horns could have been removable, giving rise to a possible cult ceremony in autumn and another one in spring. Wings introduce a connection with the sky, the source of the rain in spring. In addition, Francfort notices the relationship of the Bactrian dragon myth with a more general third millennium shamanic culture reaching from Mesopotamia to China, the Indo-Aryan interpretation of the myth being secondary and borrowed from the previous one.

5. Conclusions

In the ancient world, representations that combined human and animal qualities conveyed supernatural powers. These small figures, with a human face and scaled body, probably represent such a creature, enlivened and charged with magical efficacy. The negative construction of the figurines as opposed to the female figurines can be understood as the opposition of terrestrial beings and underworld monsters, the latter being tamed by the former as described in the dragon-slaying myth.

The monstrous figure’s enigmatic and distinctive features are the prominent split across its face, the two holes pierced into its upper and lower lips and the meteoritic iron headband.

According to the recent works of PIE linguists, the “scar” should be interpreted as the split from which the water was liberated as in the Vedic myth [24]. The meteoritic iron headband could be a reminder of a heavenly material used to conceal the water. As for the lips, in the absence of any mention in the available versions of the myth, we are left with interpreting this feature as a specific signature of the BMAC culture to be elucidated. Our interpretation suggests that the Indo-European dragon myth was not specific to this culture and possibly of very ancient origin.