DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36954#0056
to pay the traditional taxes. The go Id washers had refused further
tributes anticipating a future land reform. In the meantime, an
agreement was reached, and the ferry constructed for the transfer
of the cattle — which gave us access to the other side — is normal-
ly out of use. Therefore, the site Thor North is now almost in-
accessible, so I do not think that this discussion will have fatal
consequences for the "bold" graffiti now.
I refer to the description given by SANDER and I will not discuss
whether a similar motif was already depicted in the Achaemenid
period (cf. SURIEN 1979: 83 — the date is rather problematic),
but propose an explanation for this rather primitive and vulgar
graffito.
Sexually explicit, humorous, or rather playful clay-figurines are
not rare in the collections brought together by Sir Aurel STEIN
and others in the classical sites of the Tarim Basin. Many of them
came from Khotan (D'JAKONOVA-SOROKIN I960: 20-22,
pi. 29). Apparently, the enlightened part of the settlers in the
rich oasis (many of them merchants) had a special predilection
for such toy-like items; often monkeys are the actors, instead of
humans. This gave me the explanation, when I observed such
"dirty graffiti" on the rocks of the site Shatial Bridge. They de-
pict monkeys, but the upper parts of their bodies are trans-
formed into phalli. After all, the Sogdians were sophisticated and
urbane travellers as well. Some inscriptions may belong into the
same category (HUMBACH 1980: 204—205).
But in Thor North the person sexually attacked (without female
attributes) has prolongated earlobes, the aggressor with the large
phallus is provided with an (misunderstood?) "usnisa". These
marks can be explained by the intention to indicate that the
persons involved are Buddhists — or belong even to the Buddhist
pantheon. Maybe we here find an allusion to the bias for homo-
sexuality which was imputed to monks in many cultures. So we
could assume that this was meant as a taunt directed by a Sog-
dian, non-Buddhist merchant against his Buddhist partners.
There are two possibilities for the offended to react in such a
situation: One normal reaction would be to destroy the graffito
— the other one would be to retort with an even more provoca-
tive accusation. And in fact, we see on the same rock a man in a
sodomising pose, characterized by the long girded coat as worn
LII
tributes anticipating a future land reform. In the meantime, an
agreement was reached, and the ferry constructed for the transfer
of the cattle — which gave us access to the other side — is normal-
ly out of use. Therefore, the site Thor North is now almost in-
accessible, so I do not think that this discussion will have fatal
consequences for the "bold" graffiti now.
I refer to the description given by SANDER and I will not discuss
whether a similar motif was already depicted in the Achaemenid
period (cf. SURIEN 1979: 83 — the date is rather problematic),
but propose an explanation for this rather primitive and vulgar
graffito.
Sexually explicit, humorous, or rather playful clay-figurines are
not rare in the collections brought together by Sir Aurel STEIN
and others in the classical sites of the Tarim Basin. Many of them
came from Khotan (D'JAKONOVA-SOROKIN I960: 20-22,
pi. 29). Apparently, the enlightened part of the settlers in the
rich oasis (many of them merchants) had a special predilection
for such toy-like items; often monkeys are the actors, instead of
humans. This gave me the explanation, when I observed such
"dirty graffiti" on the rocks of the site Shatial Bridge. They de-
pict monkeys, but the upper parts of their bodies are trans-
formed into phalli. After all, the Sogdians were sophisticated and
urbane travellers as well. Some inscriptions may belong into the
same category (HUMBACH 1980: 204—205).
But in Thor North the person sexually attacked (without female
attributes) has prolongated earlobes, the aggressor with the large
phallus is provided with an (misunderstood?) "usnisa". These
marks can be explained by the intention to indicate that the
persons involved are Buddhists — or belong even to the Buddhist
pantheon. Maybe we here find an allusion to the bias for homo-
sexuality which was imputed to monks in many cultures. So we
could assume that this was meant as a taunt directed by a Sog-
dian, non-Buddhist merchant against his Buddhist partners.
There are two possibilities for the offended to react in such a
situation: One normal reaction would be to destroy the graffito
— the other one would be to retort with an even more provoca-
tive accusation. And in fact, we see on the same rock a man in a
sodomising pose, characterized by the long girded coat as worn
LII