Item number: X69

Year: 4th – 9th C. AD

Material: Bronze

Size: 41.7 x 17.7 x 1.5 mm

Weight: 4.26 g

Provenance: Stephen Album Rare Coins 2026

This is a small bronze anthropomorphic amulet originating from Transoxiana.

The figurine depicts a male figure with a convex front surface. The brow ridges of the face merge seamlessly with the bridge of the nose, a sculptural style frequently observed in Transoxiana since the Hellenistic period, whereas the torso presents an abstract, linear form. The arms are placed akimbo, creating circular negative spaces between them and the trunk. The legs are in a semi-squatting position with ankles drawn together and knees spread outwards, resembling frog legs. At the groin, a raised circular dot projects as a phallic representation. The reverse is plain, characteristic of a uniface casting technique. From an anthropological perspective, human figurines that emphasise the genitalia frequently bear aspirations for the prosperity of offspring, or furthermore, are associated with specific sorcerous or ritualistic practices.

Bronze anthropomorphic amulets of a similar morphology may have originated as early as 1000–350 BC within the Koban culture of the northern Caucasus. The Sarmatians, spanning from the fifth century BC to the fourth century AD, inherited this iconographic tradition and potentially propagated it eastward through migrations or conflicts. While its subsequent development remains obscure, similar amulets are still manufactured in contemporary Thailand, where it is claimed that their form derives from the Lanna Kingdom. In the antiquities market, Western collectors predominantly attribute such objects to China; however, judging by formal excavation records, Chinese funerary figurines diverge significantly from this morphology. Conversely, within the Chinese art and antiquities market, they are traded under the nomenclature of “Liao-Jin miniature bronze figures,” despite the fact that in the archaeological records of the Liao and Jin dynasties, excavated human figurines consistently align more closely with indigenous Chinese styles. The source indicates that this object originates from the Sogdian city-states of Transoxiana.

Centred around the Chechen region, where excavations have yielded a greater quantity of larger-scale finds, the Koban culture was an archaeological culture dating from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. It possessed well-developed metallurgical remains and likely ceased to exist due to the rise of the Scythians. The Sarmatians were an ancient Eastern Iranian-speaking nomadic tribal confederation originating from the Eurasian steppes between the modern Ural Mountains and the Don River. Around the fourth to third centuries BC, under the chain pressure of migrations by eastern nomadic peoples, the Sarmatians began a large-scale westward advance, defeating their close ethnic relatives, the Scythians, around 200 BC to become the new hegemons of the Pontic steppes north of the Black Sea in Eastern Europe. Around 100 BC, their power reached its historical zenith, controlling territories stretching from the Vistula River in the west to the lower Danube in the south and the Volga River in the east, prompting the Romans to name this vast region Sarmatia. Subsequently, internal tribes began to fracture; among them, the Iazyges breached the Danubian defensive lines in the mid-first century BC to enter the Pannonian Basin, forcing the Roman Empire to regard them as a primary target of frontier defence. Following the first century AD, conflicts and alliances between the Sarmatians and the Roman Empire intensified progressively; they allied with Germanic tribes to launch the fierce Marcomannic Wars, which became the most intractable military crisis during the reign of the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Concurrently, certain tribes accepted pacification to become buffer states or were incorporated into the Roman military as mercenaries. From the third century AD onwards, alongside global climatic shifts and geopolitical realignments, the Germanic Goths advanced southwards, severing their long-standing hegemony, whereupon the Alans, an eastern constituent lineage, arose to assimilate most of the tribes. In the fourth century AD, the Huns invaded the Eastern European steppes, causing the remaining Sarmatian tribal elements to collapse entirely; some subordinated themselves to the Huns, while others joined the Barbarian Migrations to invade the Western Roman Empire from the west. The rest of the remnants were gradually assimilated and absorbed during the Early Middle Ages by the expanding Early Slavs and indigenous Caucasian peoples.

The Sogdian city-states were primarily located in Transoxiana (modern southwestern Uzbekistan). During the Tang Dynasty, contemporary Chinese referred to them as the ‘Nine Houses of Zhaowu’ or the ‘Hu of the Nine Surnames’. When traveling within the borders of the Han territories, citizens of these states frequently adopted their country’s name as their surname; a famous example is An Lushan, who adopted the surname from ‘the State of An’. Although named ‘Nine Surnames’, there were not merely nine regimes, nor were they likely composed of a single ethnic group. The origin of the Sogdians can perhaps be traced back to the remnants of the Greater Yuezhi after they were destroyed by the Xiongnu, who gradually integrated with ethnic groups such as the Turks in the region. In the fourth year of the Zhenguan era of Emperor Taizong of Tang (630 AD), the Tang military generals Li Jing and Li Ji defeated and extinguished the Eastern Turkic Khaganate, leading to a steady increase in the Tang court’s influence over the Western Regions. During the Zhenguan era, various city-states began to offer tribute one after another. In the fourth year of the Xianqing era of Emperor Gaozong of Tang (659 AD), the Tang destroyed the Western Turks and established loose rein (jimi) administration over the Zhaowu Nine Surnames, bringing them collectively under the management of the Anxi Grand Protectorate. Leveraging their geographical advantages and commercial convenience, the Sogdians traveled back and forth along the Silk Road, establishing communities in places such as Chang’an and Luoyang, and gradually achieved a certain status within the military and political systems of the Tang Empire.

物件編號: X69

年代: 公元 4-9 世紀

材料: 青銅

尺寸: 41.7 x 17.7 x 1.5 mm

重量: 4.26 g

來源: 史蒂芬稀有錢幣專輯 2026

這是一枚出自河中地區的小銅人護身符。

銅像為男性塑像，正面為圓凸面。其面部眉骨與鼻樑相連，為河中地區自希臘化時期以來時見的雕塑風格。身軀則呈現抽象化的線條形式。雙手叉腰，與軀幹間的空隙呈圓形。雙腿半蹲，腳踝併攏，膝部外張，狀似蛙腿。腿心處突起一圓點，作為生殖器的象徵。背面光素，具有單面鑄造的特徵。

就人類學意義而言，強調生殖器的人像往往承載著子孫繁盛的願望。更有甚者則會與特定的巫術儀式有關。

類似形制的青銅人像護身符可能最早源於公元前1000至350年，北高加索地區的庫班文化。公元前五世紀至公元四世紀的薩馬提亞人則承繼了此圖像傳統，並可能在遷徙或衝突中向東傳播。其後的發展並不明朗，但在當代，泰國仍在製造類似形制的護符，並宣稱其造型來自蘭納王國。市場上，歐美的藏家多認為其來自中國，但就發掘紀錄來看，中國的墓葬偶俑與該造型相差甚遠。而在中國的文玩市場上，則以「遼金小銅人」為名，儘管在遼金的考古紀錄中，出土人像往往更接近中國的風格。來源則指出此物件來自河中地區的粟特城邦。

庫班文化以車臣地區為中心，出土較多，規模較大。是位於晚期青銅時代至早期鐵器時代的考古學文化，具有發達的冶金遺跡，可能因為斯基泰的興起而滅絕。

薩馬提亞人是起源於現今烏拉山脈至頓河之間歐亞草原的古代東伊朗語系遊牧部落聯盟。約在西元前四世紀至前三世紀，受到東方遊牧民族遷徙的連鎖壓力，薩馬提亞人開始大規模向西推進，並在西元前二百年左右擊敗同族近親斯基泰人，成為東歐黑海北岸大草原的新一代霸主。西元前一百年左右其勢力達到歷史巔峰，控制疆域西起維斯瓦河、南抵多瑙河下游、東至伏爾加河，使羅馬人將此廣袤區域命名為薩馬提亞。隨後內部部落走向分化，其中亞茲格人於西元前一世紀中葉突破多瑙河防線進入潘諾尼亞平原，迫使羅馬帝國將其視為邊境防禦的主要對象。西元一世紀後，薩馬提亞人與羅馬帝國的衝突及結盟日益頻繁，他們曾聯合日耳曼部落發動慘烈的馬科曼尼戰爭，成為羅馬皇帝馬可·奧勒留任內最棘手的軍事危機；同時也有部分部落接受招撫成為緩衝國，或作為僱傭軍編入羅馬軍隊。西元三世紀起，隨著全球氣候變遷與地緣政治洗牌，日耳曼系哥德人南下切斷其長年統治，隨後內部東部支系阿蘭人崛起同化了大部分部落。西元四世紀匈人入侵東歐草原，殘存的薩馬提亞部族徹底土崩瓦解，部分依附匈人，部分則加入日耳曼大遷徙向西攻入西羅馬帝國，其餘殘部則在歐洲中世紀早期逐漸被擴張的早期斯拉夫人與高加索原住民族同化吸收。

粟特城邦主要位於河中地區(今烏茲別克西南部)，於唐代時人稱為「昭武九姓」或「九姓胡」，其國人於漢境行走時常以國名為姓，著名者如安祿山，便以｢安國｣為姓。雖名「九姓」，但並非僅有九個政權，也大概並非單一民族組成。粟特人源流可能可以上溯至大月氏被匈奴擊滅後的殘部，於當地逐漸與突厥等民族相融。唐太宗貞觀四年(公元630年)，唐軍將領李靖、李勣攻滅東突厥汗國，唐廷對西域影響力漸增。貞觀年間諸城邦紛紛開始入貢。唐高宗顯慶四年(公元659年)，唐滅西突厥，羈縻昭武九姓，統歸安西大都護府管理。粟特人藉地利與商貿之便，往來於絲綢之路沿線，並於長安、洛陽等地建立社群，並逐漸於唐帝國的軍、政系統中取得一定地位。