A Political History of Parthia/Chapter 1

by Neilson Carel Debevoise

 

CHAPTER I

THE GROWTH OF PARTHIA

THE racial origin of the earliest Parthians is largely a matter of conjecture, since our few authorities differ widely from one another as to who they were and whence they came, and archaeological and anthropological evidence is not yet forth­coming. Skeletal remains from Mesopotamia cannot be expected to yield much information, for we know in advance that they contain a large percentage of na­tive population, a sprinkling of Macedonian or Greek stock, and possibly Negro, Chinese, Indian, and Mon­goloid individuals.^[1] Because of the heavy beards and the lack of detail, little if any anthropological infor­mation can be secured from the portraits on Parthian coins.^[2] Language provides no clue to the origin of the Parthians, for their speech as we know it was adopted after they entered the Iranian plateau. Their cus­toms give us more extensive and more certain infor­mation, but nothing beyond what we already know from classical writers. Love of the hunt and of hard drinking, extensive use of the bow, especially as a weapon on horseback, are all suggestive of the no­madic or seminomadic life of the steppe country.

Early historians paid little attention to the Parthians; when the western world came into contact with them their story had been much obscured by time. They were reported to have been a division of the Parni, who in turn were one of a group of tribes known to the Greeks as the Dahae.^[3] We first meet them on the banks of the Ochus (Tejend) River, although this was probably not their original home­land.^[4] These people would not be known as Parthians until they moved southward into the Persian province of Parthava, an event which took place sometime before 250 b.c. Achaemenian and early Greek refer­ences to the "Parthians" refer, therefore, to earlier inhabitants of Parthava, not to the Parthians with whom we are dealing.^[5]

That as early as the seventh century b.c. the Assyrians knew the district which was later called Parthava is suggested by reports of a raid by Esarhaddon^[6] which penetrated the country south of the Cas­pian Sea. Among those captured were Zanasana of Partukka and Uppis of Partakka. The raid must have taken place shortly before 673 b.c. Though As­syria's boundaries certainly did not include Parthava,^[7] the latter perhaps formed a part of Media.^[8] Cyrus the Great, who conquered the Medes, con­ducted a campaign in the eastern part of his newly won empire between 546 and 539 b.c.^[9] He founded Cyra on the Jaxartes River^[10] and three other cities on or near the Tanais (Oxus) River.^[11] The conquest of Parthava probably took place during this cam­paign. The country was placed under the control of Hystaspes, patron of Zoroaster and father of Darius.^[12] Cyrus lost his life fighting against the Dahae in an attempt to expand his empire to the north­east.^[13] At that time the satrapy of Parthava included Hyrcania, which lay between the Elburz Mountains and the Caspian Sea.^[14] The satrapy revolted about 521 b.c. against Hystaspes and upheld the cause of the Median pretender Fravartish. The first battle was fought at Vishpauzatish^[15] on the twenty-second day of Viyakhna.^[16] Aid arrived from the army at Rhages (Rayy), and another battle was waged at Patigrabana on the first day of Garmapada,^[17] when 6,520 of the rebels were reported killed and 4,192 wounded. About this time Margiana revolted, and the satrap of Bactria was sent to put down the upris­ing.^[18] Parthava probably remained united with Hyrcania at the death of Darius.^[19]

The mention of Parthava in the Behistun inscription seems clear indication that it was acquired by Cyrus; the fact that it appears in the Naqsh-i-Rustem inscription shows that it was still a portion of the king­dom at the death of Darius. The army list preserved in Herodotus vii. 60–81.^[20] can be dated as previous to 479 b.c., and therefore reveals the condition of the satrapies shortly after the death of Darius. Hyrcania had been separated from Parthava and made a prov­ince by itself, while the former satrapy of Chorasmia was then joined with Parthava.^[21] Other indications suggest possible losses on this eastern frontier. In the army of Xerxes there was a contingent of Parthians under the command of Artabazus the son of Pharnaces. Since Herodotus tells us elsewhere that the satraps led their contingents to battle, Artabazus was probably satrap of Parthia. Aeschylus^[22] reports that among those killed in the fighting in Greece was a cavalry leader called Arsaces, a name which later be­came the throne name of the Parthian kings.

The official tribute list quoted by Herodotus (iii. 89–95) is clearly from his own time, that of Artaxerxes I, not, as he states, from that of Darius.^[23] Here again the tendency toward union of the provinces makes us suspect further shrinkage of the frontiers. Parthia was now joined with Chorasmia, Sogdiana, and Aria to form one province, and Hyrcania was united with Media.

When Alexander invaded Asia, the Parthians fought on the Persian side at Arbela.^[24] Parthia fell to Alexander at the death of Darius III, and its satrap Phrataphernes surrendered himself in Hyrcania.^[25] Amminaspes, a Parthian who had been in Egypt, was made satrap; and Tlepolemus, one of the Compan­ions, was selected to represent Alexander's military interests.^[26] Under Alexander, Parthia was reunited with Hyrcania, but the other districts mentioned by Herodotus as joined with it were then definitely sepa­rate satrapies.^[27] Bessus in his attempt to seize the power after the death of Darius III also appointed a Parthian satrap, Barzanes by name,^[28] who probably never enjoyed opportunity for action.

By the Treaty of Triparadisus in 321 b.c. a certain Philippus was transferred from Bactria to Parthia.^[29] In 318 b.c. Pithon, satrap of Media, seized the prov­ince of Parthia, did away with Philippus, and in­stalled his brother Eudamus. The other satraps became alarmed and joined together under the strong­est, Peucestas of Persis. The combined armies of Iran drove Pithon out of Parthia, and he retreated to his own province of Media.^[30] After 316 b.c. the prov­ince apparently was joined to Bactria under the command of Stasanor.^[31] By the middle of the third century the Seleucid empire was in difficulty. Antiochus II continued the war which his father had begun in Egypt about 276 b.c. When peace was made Anti­ochus put away his wife Laodice, who retired to Ephesus, and married Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II (253 b.c.). Although Antiochus had thus secured peace, his relations with Ptolemy were none too se­cure. About the time of the marriage Diodotus,^[32] sa­trap of Bactria, revolted and assumed the title of king.^[33]

Encouraged by the Bactrian success, the Parthians also rose against Seleucid control. This took place shortly before 247 b.c.,^[34] the beginning of the Parthian era,^[35] when two brothers, Arsaces^[36] and Tiridates, led a revolt against Andragoras,^[37] satrap of Antiochus II Theos (261–247 b.c.). Even the Greeks themselves were quite uncertain as to the historicity of their accounts of this early period. There is a story that the first Parthian leader, Arsaces, was a Bactrian who became discontented with the rule of the satrap Diodotus of Bactria, invaded Parthia, and successfully fomented a revolt.^[38] Still a third and more detailed version is to be found in Arrian,^[39] according to which either Arsaces or Tiridates was insulted by the Seleucid satrap. The brothers thereupon took five men into their confidence, killed the offender, and persuaded the people to revolt. Without additional evidence it is impossible to determine the correct account.

The two brothers who led the revolt were reputed to be descendants of Arsaces^[40] the son of Phriapites.^[41] Later the Parthian kings claimed descent from Artaxerxes II, possibly to support the belief that they were continuing the glories of Achaemenian Iran.^[42] Andragoras, satrap of Antiochus, apparently perished in the struggle. Arsaces may have been crowned in Asaak (near Kuchan in the upper Atrek River valley) in Astauene.^[43] For the first years of the new kingdom, if such it might be called, the rulers were busy with warfare,^[44] in the course of which Arsaces must have lost his life.^[45] Not long after the succession of Tiridates to the throne he invaded and conquered Hyrcania.^[46]

The death of Diodotus calmed any fears which Tiridates may have had, and an alliance with the Bactrian's son, also called Diodotus, gave the Parthian ruler additional strength.^[47] Through fear of the elder Diodotus and of Seleucus II Callinicus (247–226 b.c.), Tiridates had built a formidable military force, the value of which he was to appreciate later.^[48] The situation had become extremely serious for Seleucus. Laodice his mother and her friends had done away with Berenice and her son, thus incurring the enmity of Ptolemy III, Berenice's brother. The Egyptian monarch invaded Seleucid territory and marched victoriously at least as far as Syria and perhaps to the Tigris,^[49] though later writers extended his conquests to Bactria and even as far eastward as India. But a revolt in the Delta forced Ptolemy to return home before he could consolidate his position. Sometime in the course of the struggle between Ptolemy and Seleucus, the latter was forced to conclude a peace with his brother which left Antiochus Hierax an autonomous sovereign in Asia Minor. The war with Egypt once ended, Seleucus soon attempted to recover the lost territory; but after some preliminary successes he was completely defeated at Ancyra (Ankara) about 240 b.c.^[50] by Antiochus and his Galatian allies. For a time it was supposed that Seleucus himself had perished in the fighting, but he escaped in disguise to Antioch.

About 228 b.c. Seleucus gathered an army at Babylon^[51] and marched eastward. Tiridates retreated before him and eventually sought refuge with the Apasiacae, the Apa-Saka or Water Saka,^[52] who lived on the steppes of the Caspian region. In the meantime, about 227 b.c. Stratonice incited a rebellion in Antioch, and in concert with her Antiochus invaded Mesopotamia.^[53] These domestic troubles caused Seleucus to return to Syria^[54] and left the Parthians in a position to claim the ultimate victory.^[55]

Seleucus III Soter, the elder son of Seleucus II Callinicus, after a brief reign of three years was mur­ dered in Phrygia as the result of a court intrigue,^[56] and Antiochus III, the younger son of Seleucus II, succeeded to the throne (223 b.c.). Two of his generals, the brothers Molon and Alexander, were intrusted with the satrapies of Media and Persis. Not long thereafter Molon, possibly inspired by the Bactrian and Parthian successes,^[57] revolted and declared himself king. Liver omens copied in Uruk April 30, 221 b.c., picture the thoughts passing through the mind of a priest. Who was to be the victor in the coming struggle for power? Would the city be destroyed? The omen of "Who was king, who was not king?," once applied to the period of disintegration at the close of the Agade dynasty, was now fully appropriate.^[58] Babylonia was secured; but Antiochus himself took the field and defeated Molon, who committed suicide (220 b.c.). Seleucia, the royal city, was recaptured, and Diogenes of Susa, who had held out against Molon, was rewarded with Media. Antiochus crossed the Zagros and invaded the kingdom of Atropatene, southwest of the Caspian, then under the control of Artabazanes, who was forced to admit vassalage.^[59] Additional omen tablets from Uruk, dated February 7, 213 b.c., make more certain the identification of the Parthians with that ancient enemy from the northeast, the Guti.^[60] Could the expedition of Antiochus have been a feint in the direction of a Parthia which had already begun to expand? Did Parthia lend support to Molon? These are questions which as yet we cannot answer.

Meanwhile Tiridates had employed himself in consolidating his position. He increased the army, built forts, strengthened existing cities, and built a new one, Dara, on Mount Apaortenon, an almost impregnable position,^[61] which he perhaps intended to make the capital of his kingdom.^[62] Tiridates or one of his immediate successors refounded Rhages-Europus under the name Arsacia,^[63] a designation which it did not long retain. In later times the royal residence of central Parthia was certainly Hecatompylos.^[64] Tiridates died in peace about 211 b.c. after a reign of thirty-seven years.^[65] He left the throne to his son, whose name was apparently Artabanus (I).^[66]

In the death of the powerful Tiridates, Antiochus III may have seen an opportunity to regain his eastern possessions; in any case in that same year he turned eastward^[67] and advanced to Ecbatana (Hamadan), where loot from the temple of Anahita served to replenish his treasury.^[68] In 209 b.c. Antiochus continued his eastward march along the great road with a large army.^[69] While no excuse for this attack on Parthia is known, none was necessary beyond the fact that the territory had once been Seleucid domain. On the edge of the vast salt plains to the east the only available water supply was and still is carried through underground canals to prevent evaporation. Artabanus followed the obviously wise policy of retreating and destroying the wells and canals before him. Cavalry was sent forward which established contact with the Parthian horsemen engaged in this work and drove them away, and the Seleucid forces reached Hecatompylos practically unopposed. Antiochus determined to advance into Hyrcania and moved forward to Tagae (Tak?) near Damghan.^[70] His ascent to the summit of Mount Labus (Lamavu) was hotly contested by Parthian troops or their allies posted on the heights above, but he reorganized his system of advance and forced the passage. At the pass itself a pitched battle was fought and the Parthians defeated. Antiochus managed to restrain his troops from headlong pursuit and advanced in good order down into Hyrcania, where he occupied the unwalled town of Tambrax (Sari?).^[71] The important center of Syrinx^[72] was taken after a siege of some duration, and all the Greek inhabitants were put to death by the Parthians just before the town was carried by assault.^[73] What happened thereafter is uncertain, but Antiochus found it prudent to make peace and a treaty of alliance with Artabanus.^[74] Twenty-one years later Antiochus met his death in a vain attempt to recoup his fortune by the sack of a temple of Bel in Elymais.^[75] We know nothing more of Artabanus I except that his reign is conventionally represented as ending in 191 b.c.^[76]

Priapatius, the succeeding monarch, ruled for fifteen years,^[77] but beyond this fact our sources are silent. He left two sons, Mithradates and Phraates. As the latter was the elder,^[78] he inherited the throne at his father's death, as was the Parthian custom.^[79]

Phraates soon turned his arms against the peoples who dwelt in the Elburz range, south of the Caspian Sea. The Mardians^[80] in particular he deported and settled in Charax near the Caspian Gates.^[81] Not long after this victory Phraates died and left the throne to his brother Mithradates, for whom he cherished a special affection, although he had several sons presumably of age.^[82] If we follow the traditional date, Mithradates came to the throne about 171 b.c.;^[83] with his accession we enter one of the greatest periods of Parthian history.^[84]

About 175 b.c. the usurper Eucratides wrested control of Bactria from Demetrius, who was more inter­ested in his conquests in the Punjab.^[85] Taking advantage of Bactrian weakness which had doubtless resulted from continued warfare, Mithradates may have invaded Tapuria and Traxiana at this time.^[86] The belief that Mithradates extended his power as far south and east as Seistan, part of Aria, and Gedrosia rests solely on the identification of the Hydaspes of Orosius with the modern Porali.^[87]

The hasty departure of Antiochus IV Epiphanes from Palestine for the far eastern portion of the empire suggests an advance by the Parthians.^[88] True, Palestine was unsettled—not an unusual condition for that region—but such an event as the invasion of the eastern lands by Mithradates at this time would have loomed as far more important in the eyes of the Seleucid ruler. In 165 b.c. Antiochus crossed the Euphrates^[89] and marched into Armenia, where the king, Artaxias, was captured and forced to acknowledge the supremacy of the Seleucid ruler.^[90] Thence Antiochus apparently returned to the great road, passed through Ecbatana, and attacked Persepolis, where the enraged populace drove him out.^[91] Perhaps he entered Elymais also.^[92] Eventually he was defeated and forced to retreat, and on the return journey he died at Gabae (Isfahan).^[93]

The incursion of Mithradates into Elymais must have alarmed Timarchus, king of Media, since he was obviously the next victim of further expansion by Parthia. Timarchus was king of Media as late as 161 b.c.,^[94] and we are told that the invasion of Media by Mithradates was contemporaneous with the murder of Eucratides of Bactria by his son,^[95] which took place about 155 b.c. Between 161 and 155 b.c., therefore, Mithradates waged a long war with Media, the success of which remained for some time in the balance. At length victorious, he set a man by the name of Bacasis to rule over the new territory.^[96]

The acquisition of Media opened the door of Mesopotamia for Parthian expansion into that fertile territory.^[97] A badly broken cuneiform tablet, which must be freely interpreted, gives us a contemporary account of the advance of Mithradates. When news of his approach reached the Seleucid ruler, Demetrius Nicator, then in Babylonia and very possibly at Seleucia on the Tigris, the latter quickly gathered together what men he could secure^[98] and marched into Media to meet the enemy.^[99] Apparently the Parthian managed to outmaneuver him and continued his advance. In the meantime Demetrius had left orders to gather additional troops, and one of his generals entered Mesopotamia, coming probably from Syria, with reinforcements. Mithradates turned southward to Seleucia and defeated him. At Seleucia the Parthian monarch received a deputation which brought word of friendship from some city in the land of Ashur,^[100] for that territory must have been fully aware of the turn affairs had taken after the defeat of the general of Demetrius. Mithradates entered the royal city of Seleucia late in June or early in July; he was recognized as king on or before July 8, 141 b.c. Before October 14 of that year Mithradates' sovereignty was acknowledged as far south as Uruk.^[101] Naturally the inhabitants of Susa and the surrounding region felt uneasy, as is shown by a dedicatory inscription of 171 s.e. (141 b.c.) for the safety of a king and queen whose names are cautiously omitted.^[102] Susa was the next logical point in the advance of the Great King.

Sometime between October and December, 141 b.c., Mithradates was on his way to Hyrcania.^[103] The cause of his departure from Mesopotamia at this criti­cal juncture in his campaign was probably a raid by the Sacae, who shortly before 165 b.c. had been forced from their homeland in Turkestan by the Yüeh-chi^[104] and by this time were certainly close to the eastern borders of Parthia. The forces in Mesopotamia were turned over to a Parthian commander, and Mithra­ dates never returned to that region, for the remainder of his reign was occupied with campaigns in southern and central Parthia.^[105] His departure from the Land of the Two Rivers for Hyrcania enabled the Elamites to raid the city of Apamea on the Ṣilḫu River.^[106]

Mithradates had no sooner gone than Demetrius returned to the attack. Doubtless he was justifiably encouraged by appeals for help from recently conquered peoples,^[107] particularly from the Greek elements. As Demetrius advanced, large numbers flocked to his standards; we hear of contingents from Bactria, Elymais, and Persis. He won several victories,^[108] but eventually, by either strategy or force, was taken by the Parthians and as a pointed example paraded through the streets of those cities which had aided him. Demetrius was then sent to Hyrcania to Mithradates. There he was treated as became his rank^[109] and was given Rhodogune, daughter of Mithradates, in marriage.^[110]

His enemy safely disposed of, Mithradates turned to punish those who had furnished aid to the Seleucid ruler. Not only had the Elymaeans thus provoked an attack, but the wealth of their temples would replenish a treasury depleted by warfare. The loot from the temples of "Athena" and Artemis alone is reported as ten thousand talents,^[111] and no doubt there were others. The city of Seleucia (Mange?), formerly Solace, on the Hedyphon (Jarrāḥī) River was captured.^[112] Since the Parthians were established in Susa shortly after the death of Mithradates,^[113] that territory was probably added to the empire by the Great King himself. Mithradates died peaceably in 138/37 b.c., the first Parthian date fixed accurately by numismatic and cuneiform evidence."^[114]

The empire of Mithradates at his death included Parthia proper, Hyrcania, Media, Babylonia, Assyria, Elymais, Persis(?), and the districts of Tapuria and Traxiana.^[115] Mithradates was the first Parthian ruler whose name did honor to the god Mithra; and the worship of this god, hitherto largely officially ignored, must have received official sanction. The Mithra yasht of the Vendidad must have been composed in the last years of the reign of Mithradates."^[116]

The language of official communication of the Parthian government was probably Pahlavi, that is, Persian written in Aramaic characters. Whole Aramaic words are rather frequently written, for which the reader substitutes their Persian equivalents. Persian in Aramaic characters appears on the tomb of Darius I. The writing on the early coins of Persis, which date roughly about 250–150 b.c., could be either Aramaic or Pahlavi. The introduction of Pahlavi into the government offices may well have been coincident with Parthian expansion over Iran; certainly it could not have been later than the conquest of Mesopotamia.

After the Parthians occupied the ancient and fertile Land of the Two Rivers, conflict with western powers became inevitable. Expansion to the east also brought with it further responsibilities. The story of these contacts on the frontiers of the empire will be dealt with in the following chapters.

 

1. Marcel A. Dieulafoy, L'Acropole de Suse (Paris, 1893), pp. 109–13, has analyzed three skulls from the Parthian strata at Susa, but there is no reason to suppose they are Parthian. The graves and grave objects from Seleucia on the Tigris, not including the skeletal remains, will be treated by Samuel Yeivin in a volume of the "University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series," the manuscript for which is now in prep­aration.
2. Dr. Henry Field, curator of physical anthropology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, was kind enough to examine Wroth's publi­cation of British Museum coins (see n. 7 below); cf. Charles E. de Ujfalvÿ, "Iconographie et anthropologie irano-indiennes," L'Anthropologie, XI (1900), 199–203.
3. Strabo xi. 7. 1 and 9. 2–3, followed by Edwyn R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus (London, 1902), I, 284, and Percy M. Sykes, A History of Persia (2d ed.; London, 1921), I, 307. Cf. George Rawlinson, The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy (London, 1873), pp. 17 and 42 f.
4. Strabo xi. 9. 2; Apollodorus Parthica in Strabo xi. 7. 3; Justin xli. 1; Arrian Parthica fr. 1 in Photius 58.
5. E. Herzfeld, "Sakastan," AMI IV (1932), 36; William Montgomery McGovern, Early Empires of Central Asia (in press).
6. E. G. Klauber, Politisch-religiöse Texte aus der Sargonidenzeit (Leip­zig, 1913), Nos. 21–22; R. Campbell Thompson, The Prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (London, 1931), p. 21; E. Herzfeld, "Medisch und Parthisch," AMI, VII (1934), 26–29; George G. Cameron, History of Early Iran (Chicago, 1936), pp. 170–74.
7. Cf. A. T. Olmstead, History of Assyria (New York, 1923), pp. 46–47; CAH, III, map facing p. 1. The following maps also may be of use: W. W. Tarn in CAH, IX, facing p. 612; British Museum, Catalogue of the Coins of Parthia, by Warwick Wroth (London, 1903), facing p. 1; British War Office, General Staff, Geographical Section, No. 2149, Persia and Af­ghanistan, 1 inch = 64 miles, a copy of which may be found in Sykes, Hist. of Persia, Vol. II; Heinrich Kiepert, Atlas antiquus; "Murray's Handy Classical Maps": The Eastern Empires and Asia Minor.
8. Ctesias in Diod. Sic. ii. 2 and 34. Ctesias is not trustworthy; see Cameron, History of Early Iran, p. 176, n. 15. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Cameron for suggestions embodied in this chapter.
9. An inference from Herod. i. 153, who says that Cyrus conquered the Bactrians and the Sacae; cf. Ctesias De rebus Persicis fr. 29. 3 f. (pub. with Herodotus, ed. Müller [1844]; Gilmore ed. not available), who places this event before the Lydian war (impossible), and Herod, i. 177, where the account of the conquest of Upper Asia immediately follows that of Lydia. The inclusion of Parthava in the Behistun inscription is almost certain evidence that it was conquered by Cyrus, since Cambyses after his acces­sion went immediately to Egypt.
10. Strabo xi. 11. 4; Arrian Anabasis iv. 3; Curtius Rufus vii. 6. 16. Cyra is perhaps Ura Tepe; see Wilhelm Tomaschek, "Centralasiatische Studien. I. Sogdiana," SAWW, LXXXVII (1877), 121 f.
11. Justin xii. 5. 12; PW, art. "Tanais," No. 1.
12. Behistun inscription, § 35, in F. H. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden (Leipzig, 1911), pp. 42 f. Cf. Herod. i. 204 ff.; F. Spiegel, "Ueber das Vaterland und Zeitalter des Awestâ" (II), ZDMG, XLI (1887), 292–96; F. Justi, "Die älteste iranische Religion und ihr Stifter Zarathustra," Preussische Jahrbücher, LXXXVIII (1897), 255–57; A. V. Williams Jackson, Zoroastrian Studies ("Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series," XII [New York, 1928]), pp. 17 f.; A. T. Olmstead, "New Testament Times—and Now," JAOS, LIII (1933), 313.
13. Berossus fr. 55 (Schnabel, p. 275), from Euseb. Chron., ed. Karst, p. 15, lines 11 f.
14. Behistun inscription in Weissbach, loc. cit.; cf. Herzfeld, "Zarathustra. I. Der geschichtliche Vištâspa," AMI, I (1929–30), 95–97.
15. Herzfeld, "Medisch und Parthisch," AMI, VII (1934), 30 f., identifies the place as Hecatompylos.
16. Weissbach, Die Keilinschriften der Achämeniden, p. 43, makes this February 5, 521 b.c. The translation of Achaemenid dates into the Julian calendar is very uncertain; cf. Charles J. Ogden, "A Note on the Chronol­ogy of the Behistūn Inscription of Darius," Oriental Studies in Honour of C. E. Pavry, ed. J. D. C. Pavry (London, 1933), pp. 361–65 and bibliog­raphy cited therein, also D. Sidersky, "Contribution à l'étude de la chronologie néo-babylonienne," Revue d'assyriologie, XXX (1933), 63.
17. Cf. preceding note. Herzfeld, "Zarathustra," AMI, I (1929–30), 109, n. 1, and II (1930), 65, equates Patigrabana with Bagir and Bagir with Nisa.
18. Weissbach, op. cit., pp. 44 f., § 38. The Aramaic copy from Elephan­tine in Egypt merely summarizes the Parthian campaign; see A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923), p. 258.
19. Naqsh-i-Rustem inscription, § 3, in Weissbach, op. cit., pp. 87–89, and the Xerxes inscription found by the Oriental Institute, for which see Roland G. Kent, "The Present Status of Old Persian Studies," JAOS, LVI (1936), 212 f., and "The Daiva-Inscription of Xerxes," Language, XIII (1937), 294, lines 19 f. In the Behistun and the Persepolis E in­ scriptions Parthava is the thirteenth satrapy listed; in the new Xerxes inscription it is sixth; in the Tell el-Maskhūṭah inscription from Egypt it is fifth (W. Golenischeff, "Stèle de Darius aux environs de Tell el-Maskhoutah," Recueil de travaux, XIII [1890], 102–6); and in the Naqsh-i-Rustem and Susa inscriptions it is third (on the Susa inscription see V. Scheil, "Conquêtes et politique de Darius," Mém. Miss. archéol. de Perse, XXIV [1933], 119). The name of the satrapy is written in Akkadian as Partu; in Elamite, Partuma; in Egyptian, Prtywꜣ.
20. Cf. PW, art. "Artayktes."
21. Hecataeus fr. 292 f. (J, I, p. 38) notes the proximity of the Parthians and Chorasmians.
22. Persae 995; the names in Aeschylus are generally proper to the coun­try but not historical.
23. This discussion of the satrapies is based on an unpublished study by Olmstead, "The Persian Satrapies and Their History."
24. Arrian Anabasis iii. 11; Curtius Rufus iv. 12. 11.
25. Arrian Anabasis iii. 23; cf. also Plut. Alexander 45.
26. Arrian Anabasis iii. 22. The name of the satrap is given as Andragoras by Justin xii. 4. 12. See G. F. Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Persia (London, 1922), pp. cxlviii–clx, for a discussion of the attribution of the coins bearing the name Andragoras.
27. Arrian Anabasis iii and iv.
28. Ibid. iv. 7.
29. Arrian Res successorum Alexandri fr. 9. 35 (J, II B, p. 846); Dexippus Res successorum Alexandri fr. 8. 6 (J, II A, p. 462) calls him satrap of Sogdiana.
30. Diod. Sic. xix. 14; Justin xiii. 4. 23. Cf. Bevan, House of Sel., I, 42, 267 n. 6, and 294, and in CAH, VI, 417 and 477; Alfred von Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans (Tubingen, 1888), pp. 20 ff.
31. Justin xli. 4. 1, as Bevan, House of Sel., I, 267 f. and notes, inter­prets him.
32. Trog. Pomp, xli; cf. Justin xli. 4. 5. Trogus is proved correct by the coins; see Cambridge History of India, I, ed. E. J. Rapson, Pls. II 13 and III 9, which apparently O. Seel, editor of the Teubner text of Justin, did not know. My account of events in the Seleucid empire is drawn largely from Tarn in CAH, VII, chap, xxii, which agrees substantially with the earlier works of Bevan and Bouché-Leclerq.
33. Justin xli. 4. 5.
34. Probably about 250 b.c. There is the possibility that 247 b.c., the beginning of the Parthian era, represents the date of the revolt; so Percy Gardner, The Parthian Coinage ("International Numismata Orientalia," Part V [London, 1877]), p. 3. Tarn in CAH, IX, 576, feels that it marks the coronation of Tiridates I; but it seems unlikely that the event was of sufficient importance to date the era. Moses Chor. ii. 1 refers to the revolt, but the Armenian sources are so varied and distorted that they have not been used except where they can be verified by some reliable historian or by archaeology. J. Saint-Martin, Fragments d'une histoire des Arsacides (Paris, 1850), has attempted rather unsuccessfully to make use of the Armenian historians. Cf. also Pseudo-Agathangelus (FHG, V 2, pp. 198 f.), Agathangelus (ibid., pp. 109–21), Pseudo-Bardanes (ibid., p. 86). On the revolt see Euseb. Chron., ed. Karst, p. 97, Olympiad 133.
35. There is an extensive literature on the question of the Parthian era, but since the matter is now definitely settled there is nothing to be gained by taking it up in detail. Solution of the problem dates from George Smith's discovery of a double-dated tablet (Assyrian Discoveries [London, 1875], p. 389), though, owing to an error in his dating of the Seleucid era, his figure was one year too early. Cf. F. X. Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel (Münster in Westfalen, 1907–37), II, 443–63.
36. The figure of the first Arsaces is even more obscure than those of his immediate successors. Until the period of dated coinage, about 140/39 b.c., there is no certain basis for the arrangement of the Parthian kings. The traditional list as found in Wroth, Parthia, pp. 273 f., is not, however, purely fictional. W. W. Tarn in CAH, IX, 613, has largely discarded this arrangement and based his new list on the cuneiform sources, though they rarely give the king any other name than Arsaces.
37. Justin xli. 4. 6–7. Arrian Parthica fr. 1, quoted in Photius 58, gives the name as Pherecles; but Syncellus, p. 539, presumably also quoting Arrian, makes it Agathocles. This Andragoras is not the one of the coins (cf. p. 7, n. 26).
38. Strabo xi. 9. 3.
39. Parthica fr. 1, quoted in Photius 58.
40. To the discomfiture of historians both ancient and modern, all Parthian kings used this name as a title. See Justin xli. 5. 5–6; Strabo xv. 1. 36 and xvi. 1. 28; Moses Chor. ii. i; Amm. Marcel. xxiii. 6. 5. So regularly the Babylonian documents.
41. Arrian Parthica fr. 1, quoted in Photius 58.
42. Arrian Parthica fr. 1, quoted in Syncellus, p. 539. Cf. Tarn, "Queen Ptolemais and Apama," Classical Quarterly, XXIII (1929), 138–40, who feels the claim was made to substantiate the Arsacid control of the territory of the Seleucidae, who were also connected with the Persian line.
43. Isid. Char. Mans. Parth. (Parthian Stations, by Isidore of Charax, ed. Wilfred H. Schoff [Philadelphia, 1914]) 11; Tarn in CAH, IX, 575; cf. PW, art. "Asaak." If Isidore refers to the first Arsaces it is significant that the sacred flame was kept burning in this city, for the Parthians of that period were probably Zoroastrians.
44. Strabo xi. 9. 2; Justin xli. 4. 7 f.
45. Arrian Parthica fr. 1, quoted in Syncellus, p. 539.
46. Justin xli. 4. 8. Tarn in CAH, IX, 576, following PW, art. "Hyrkania," col. 501, says the conquest must have been made after 217 b.c. because Antiochus III in his campaign of 219–217 in Coele Syria had Cadusian and Dahaean contingents in his army (Polyb. v. 79. 3 and 7) and hence the Seleucid power must have extended to the Caspian Sea. But mercenaries were common in armies of this period and earlier, even to Greeks among the forces of Nebuchadnezzar, and I do not see how such conclusions can be based on these facts.
47. Justin xli. 4. 9.
48. Ibid. 4. 8.
49. Professor Olmstead draws my attention to the fact that the Babylonian documents do not mention Ptolemy and that the dates make his rule in Babylonia improbable.
50. The date is very uncertain; see Rapson in CHI, I, 440; Bevan, House of Sel., I, 194 and 285. Tarn in CAH, VII, 720, refuses to commit himself. See also E. V. Hansen, "The Great Victory Monument of Attalus I," AJA, XLI (1937), 53, n. 3.
51. In later times Seleucia and Babylon were often confused by Greek writers, though contemporary tablets show that natives of Babylonia did not make this error. The importance of this confusion in the Parthian period has been exaggerated.
52. Polyb. x. 48; Strabo xi. 8. 8; Wilhelm Tomaschek, "Zur historischen Topographie von Persien," SAWW, CII (1883), 218; Tarn, "Seleucid-Parthian Studies," Proc. Brit. Acad., XVI (1930), 113.
53. Tarn in CAH, VII, 722; but cf. Bevan, House of Sel., I, 289 and n. 4.
54. Justin xli. 5. 1.
55. On the basis of Posidonius Hist. xvi. fr. 12 (J, II A, p. 228) in Athen. Deip. iv. 153 and of the coinage, Gardner (Parthian Coinage, p. 4) argues that Seleucus was once a captive of the Parthians, either after Ancyra or during the campaign under discussion. It must be granted that the beard which appears on his coin portraits is paralleled on the coins of only those rulers who were captives in the east. Cf. Rawlinson, Sixth Mon., p. 49, n. 1. Josephus Contra Apionem i. 206 mentions the campaign.
56. Appian Syr. 66.
57. Tarn in CAH, VII, 724.
58. F. Thureau-Dangin, Tablettes d'Uruk à l'usage des prêtres du temple d'Anu au temps des Séleucides (Musée du Louvre, "Textes cunéiformes," VI [Paris, 1922]), No. 1 rev., esp. line 23. Cf. A. T. Olmstead, "Intertestamental Studies," JAOS, LVI (1936), 245.
59. Polyb. v. 40–54.
60. Thureau-Dangin, Tablettes d'Uruk, No. 3 rev., lines 28 and 43.
61. Justin xli. 5. 1–4; incorrect variant, Zapaortenon.
62. Rawlinson, Sixth Mon., p. 53. Pliny Hist. nat. vi. 46 gives the city as Dareium and the place Apavortene; cf. Apauarkticene, Isid. Char. Mans. Parth. 1 and 13. The site has been variously identified as the oasis of Attek east of the "Achal-Tekke" (PW, art. "Dara," No. 1), as "probably near Abivard in Apavarktikene" (Tarn in CAH, IX, 575), as Kala Maran (Sykes, Hist. of Persia, I, 310), as perhaps Kelat (Ed. Meyer in Encyc. Brit. art. "Parthia"), and as near Kelat-i-Nādirī (Herzfeld, "Zarathustra," AMI, I, 109, n. 1). Victor Chapot, La frontière de l'Euphrate de Pompée à la conquête arabe (Paris, 1907), p. 314 and n. 1, confuses the Dara of Tiridates with the Dara founded by Anastasius near Nisibis about a.d. 504, and therefore charges Justin, not his original, Trogus Pompeius, with a bad eye for topography.
63. Apollodorus in Strabo xi. 13. 6; Steph. Byz. s.v. 'Ράγα; Pliny Hist. nat. vi. 113. Cf. the boundaries of Parthia as given by Strabo xi. 9. 1.
64. Baeton fr. 2 (J, II B, p. 623); Diognetus fr. 1 (J, II B, p. 626); Strabo xi. 9. i; Ptolemy vi. 5. 2. Polyb. x. 28 says all roads converge on Hecatompylos. The site is not yet identified, as recent excavations at Damghan failed to produce Parthian material. A. V. Williams Jackson, From Constantinople to the Home of Omar Khayyam (New York, 1911), pp. 161 ff. and 176 ff., places it between Frat and Damghan at Shahr-i-Ḳūmis. See also A. D. Mordtmann, "Hekatompylos. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Geographie Persiens," Bayerische Akad. der Wiss., Sitzungsberichte, 1869, 1, pp. 497–536; A. H. Schindler, "Beschreibung einiger wenig bekannten Routen in Chorassân," Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin, XII (1877), 216, and "Notes on Some Antiquities Found in a Mound near Damghan," JRAS, N.S., IX (1877), 425–27; PW, art. "Hekatompylos," No. 1. P. M. Sykes, "A Sixth Jour- ney in Persia," Geog. Journal, XXXVII (1911), 17 f., suggests Darra Gaz, some fifty miles northeast of Astrabad.
65. Arrian Parthica fr. 1, quoted in Syncellus, p. 539.
66. Our only source, Trog. Pomp. xli, must be corrected, either by the substitution of the name Mithradates for Tigranes or by the rearrangement of the text as proposed by Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, p. 81. Of the two, the substitution appears preferable. Gutschmid's rearrangement has been accepted by Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator (Paris, 1890), p. 310; Wroth, Parthia, pp. xxxi–xxxii; A. R. von Petrowicz, Arsaciden-Münzen (Wien, 1904), p. 9; J. de Morgan, Numismatique de la Perse antique. Fasc. 1. Introduction.—Arsacides (E. Babelon, Traité des monnaies grecques et romaines. III. Monnaies orientales. I 1), col. 85 and n. 2; and Ed. Meyer in Encyc. Brit. art. "Parthia." J. de Morgan and Meyer call the ruler in question Arsaces II. The following scholars have preferred the substitution: F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch(Marburg, 1895), pp. 31 and 412; Allotte de la Fuye, "Nouveau classement des monnaies arsacides," Rev. num., 1904, pp. 320–22; E. H. Minns, "Parchments of the Parthian Period from Avroman in Kurdistan," JHS, XXXV (1915), 40 f. and n. 58; Tarn, "Sel.-Parth. Studies," Proc. Brit. Acad., XVI (1930), 119 and n. 4.
67. Polyb. ix. 43 shows Antiochus at the Euphrates in the fall of 211 b.c.; he invaded rebel Media and Parthia according to Appian Syr. i. 1.
68. Polyb. x. 27.
69. Justin xli. 5. 7 grossly exaggerates the figures, giving 100,000 foot and 20,000 cavalry!
70. PW, art. "Tagai."
71. Mordtmann, "Hekatompylos," pp. 531–34; B. Dorn, Caspia (Academie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, Mémoires, 7. sér., XXIII 1 [1875]), pp. 15 and 129–30; PW, art. "Tambrax"; Herzfeld, "Sakastan," AMI, IV (1932), 37.
72. Dorn, op. cit., p. 127; W. Tomaschek, "Zur hist. Topographie," SAWW, CII (1883), 224 f.; Marquart, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran (Göttingen, 1896–1905), II, 62; PW, art. "Syrinx," No. 3. Possibly Turunga, a day's trip west of Sari.
73. Polyb. x. 27–31; at this point the fragment unfortunately breaks off.
74. Justin xli. 5. 7.
75. Strabo xvi. 1. 18; Diod. Sic. xxviii. 3 and xxix. 15; Justin xxxii. 2. 1 f.; Porphyry frs. 32. 10 and 47 (J, II B, pp. 1216 and 1224 f.).
76. Wroth, Parthia, p. xix; cf. Rawlinson, Sixth Mon., p. 59, who makes it 196 b.c.
77. Justin xli. 5. 9; until 176 b.c., Wroth, Parthia, p. xx; until 181 b.c., Rawlinson, Sixth Mon., p. 59, and Sykes, Hist. of Per., I, 321. The name Priapatius would seem to be the same as that of Arsaces' ancestor Phriapites; cf. n. 41.
78. Justin xli. 5, 9.
79. Rawlinson, Sixth Mon., p. 85.
80. On these peoples see Arrian Anabasis iii. 24; Strabo xi. 8. 1 and xi. 13. 6.
81. Isid. Char. Mans. Parth. 7. Charax is the Greek translation of the native word for "stockade."
82. Justin xli. 5. 9–10.
83. Wroth, Parthia, p. xx.
84. E. Breccia, "Mitridate I il Grande, di Partia," Klio, V (1905), 39–54.
85. Cf. Apollodorus Parthica(?) in Strabo xv. 1. 3; see also xi. 9. 2.
86. There is no evidence to date this campaign. On these districts cf. Strabo xi. 11. 2, whose Aspionus and Turiva are so identified by Tarn, "Sel.-Parth. Studies," Proc. Brit. Acad., XVI (1930), 122–26. Tarn believes the campaign took place after 163; but his argument in CAH IX, 578 and n. 1, that Parthia was a bar to the transmission of even coinage designs, does not seem strong. Cf. Rostovtzeff in CAH, VII, 174.
87. On this matter see pp. 56 f. There are other possibilities than the Porali. The southern and eastern conquests are doubtfully accepted by Tarn in CAH, IX, 579. The elephant on the coins of Mithradates is not evidence for Indian conquests; cf. the coins of Phraates II, Artabanus "II" (my III), and Mithradates III in Wroth, Parthia, p. 262, also G. H. Abbott, The Elephant on Coins (Sydney, 1919), p. 6. The Parthians apparently made little use of this animal; Tac. Ann. xv. 15 and Dio Cass, lxii. 21. 4 are the only literary mentions. This is peculiar, since both the Seleucidae and the Sasanidae made much of their elephants.
88. Cf. Tac. Hist. v. 8.
89. Josephus Ant. xii. 295–97. Cf. IV Maccabees 18:5 and Walther Kolbe, "Beiträge zur syrischen und jüdischen Geschichte" ("Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament," XXXV [Stuttgart, 1926]), pp. 106 and 155–59.
90. Appian Syr. 45 and 66; Diod. Sic. xxxi. 17a (ed. Dindorf, 1868).
91. Maccabees 9: 1–2.
92. Josephus Ant. xii. 354 f.; cf. F. Cumont, "Nouvelles inscriptions grecques de Suse," CR, 1932, pp. 284 f., an inscription for the safety of an Antiochus and a Laodice, referred by Cumont on paleographic grounds to Antiochus Epiphanes.
93. Polyb. xxxi. 9.
94. PW, art. "Timarchos," No. 5; CAH, VIII, 518–20.
95. Justin xli. 6. 6.
96. Justin xli. 6. 7. This was contrary to the usual Parthian custom of feudatory kingdoms.
97. The Parthian invasion is referred to in Orac. Sibyl. iii. 303–13. This section of book iii has been dated on other grounds to about 140 b.c. by R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913), II, 384, n. on lines 295–488.
98. That the person referred to is Demetrius, not Mithradates, is shown by the fact that he gathered "men of all sorts." The Parthian ruler would have had with him the army with which he had just invaded the country.
99. This account of the campaign is drawn from British Museum tablet SH 108, described by F. X. Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel (Munster in Westfalen, 1907–35), II, 442, and partially published in his Von Moses bis Paulus (Munster in Westfalen, 1922), pp. 338 ff. Olmstead restores lines 2–9 as follows:

    ". . . . Men of all sorts [Demetrius collected]; to the cities of Media [he marched] In the beginning of that month, on the 22d day su-bu(?) . . . . . the rab uqu (general) entered the land of Akkad. [Against him] Arshaka the king to Seleucia [went. The city of . . . ., of] the land of Ashur, which before the face of Arshaka the king [had bowed down], . . . . . [Into Seleuci]a, the royal city, he entered; that month, on the 28th day, [he sat on the throne].

    "Year 171, Arshaka the king, on the 30th of the month Duʾuzu . . . . ."

    This passage was followed by astronomical data. While not certain, the restorations are much more probable than would appear to the uninitiated, for they are the common formulas of contemporary documents. Kugler's widely different interpretation of the text is followed by Tarn in CAH, IX, 579 f. See now Olmstead, "Cuneiform Texts and Hellenistic Chronology," Class. Philol., XXXII (1937), 12 f.

100. Moses Chor. i. 7 and ii. 4. 1 makes Assyria subject to Mithradates.
101. The double-dated tablet in Otto Schroeder, Kontrakte der Seleukidenzeit aus Warka ("Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler," XV [Leipzig, 1916]), No. 37, proves no more than that Uruk then acknowledged Mithradates as king. Tarn in CAH, IX, 576 and 579 f., operating with the rēš šarrūti, "accession year," places the capture of Babylon before 1 Nisan, 141 b.c.; but "accession years" were never employed by the Seleucidae, and therefore documents would have been double-dated as soon as the sovereignty of Mithradates was acknowledged.
102. F. Cumont, "Nouvelles inscriptions grecques de Suse," CR, 1932, pp. 278 f.
103. Justin xli. 6. 6–9, after the Median campaign, omits the capture of Babylonia and then speaks of Mithradates' setting out for Hyrcania. Orosius v. 4. 16 preserves the tradition of activity in the east between the first and second campaigns of Demetrius; cf. p. 25. See also discussions of British Museum tablet Sp. I 176 by Kugler, Von Moses bis Paulus, pp. 342 f., and T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (2d ed.; London, 1903), p. 484 and p. 553, n. Kugler dates the tablet astronomically to Kislimu, 171 s.e., i.e., December, 141 b.c. The passage concerned here says, as translated by Strassmaier for Kugler:

     "In the same month I heard that Arshaka the king and his troops in (Pinches, 'to') the city of Arqania, the king (Pinches omits) . . . . . On the 6th the Elamites with their soldiers marched against the city of Apamea on the river Ṣilḫu . . . . ." Elsewhere in the tablet Seleucia is mentioned.

104. See pp. 55 f.
105. I Maccabees 14:1–3 states positively that Demetrius was captured (see p. 25) by a Parthian general. Other sources on the campaign do not mention Mithradates. Note that Justin xxxvi. 1. 5 f. says that Demetrius, captured not long after Mithradates left Mesopotamia, was sent to Hyrcania; the logical inference is that he was sent to the Parthian monarch. Cf. British Museum tablet SH 108 (see p. 22, n. 99), line 20, Olmstead's restoration:

     "That month (Ululu or later), on the 3d day, Nica[tor the king was made prisoner]."

     Farther on the text mentions "Arshaka the king" and "Seleucia."

106. See p. 24, n. 103, also PW, arts. "Apamea," No. 3, "Σελας," No. 2 and "Dialas," and H. H. Schaeder, "Ḥasan al-Baṣrī," Der Islam, XIV (1925), 15 ff.
107. Justin xxxvi. 1. 2–4.
108. Justin xxxvi. 1. 4. This is the second campaign of Plut. Reg. imp. apophtheg. 184. 1 (Loeb, III, p. 86) and Orosius v. 4. 17. Cf. Kolbe, Beiträge pp. 38–40.
109. Maccabees 14:1–3; Justin xxxvi. 1. 5–6 and xxxviii. 9. 2–3.
110. Appian Syr. 67.
111. Strabo xvi. 1. 18. Note that Justin xli. 6. 7–8 mentions the campaign in Elymais after that in Hyrcania. There was a temple of Artemis on the Eulaeus River below Susa; see Pliny Hist. nat. vi. 135 and PW, art. "Eulaios." The Eulaeus is the modern Karun.
112. Strabo xvi. 1. 18. For the identifications see PW, 2d ser., IV, col. 2561, "Σελεύκεια," No. 13.
113. F. Cumont, "Nouvelles inscriptions grecques de Suse," CR, 1932, p. 281, dated to 130 b.c. J. M. Unvala, "Inventaire des monnaies recueillies dans les fouilles," Mém. Miss. archéol. de Perse, XXV (1934), 115, No. 129, publishes without illustration a coin of Mithradates I from Susa, "161 Sél. = 152/151 ap.(!) J.-C.," actually 151/50 b.c.
114. Wroth, Parthia, p. 15. Dates on Parthian coinage throughout this volume are computed on the basis of the Babylonian calendar, with New Year on 1 Nisan (April), and of the Seleucid era, which began in Babylonia in 311 b.c. For numismatic proof of the use of the Babylonian calendar see Robert H. McDowell, Coins from Seleucia on the Tigris ("University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series," XXXVII [Ann Arbor, 1935]), pp. 147–53, and review by E. T. Newell in AJA, XLI (1937), 515–17. A tablet from Uruk dated "day 8, year 109 Arisak, equals year 173(?)," i.e., 139/38 b.c., is published by A. T. Clay, Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan. II. Legal Documents from Erech Dated in the Seleucid Era (New York, 1913), No. 52. His No. 53, without year but written by the same scribe, is dated in the reign of Arsakʾu and Ri-⸢in⸣(?)-nu his mother, who was regent. This king must be the successor of Mithradates. Cf. also Justin xli. 6. 9.
115. It is often assumed that the lands listed in the Vendidad, fargard i, belonged to Mithradates I; cf. E. Benveniste, "L'Êrân-vêž et l'origine légendaire des Iraniens," Bull. School of Or. Studies, VII (1933–35), 272. This cannot be, since it is very doubtful, for example, whether Mithradates I ever held Mesene. Even if he did, its conquest must be placed after the occupation of Sogdiana by the Yüeh-chi.
116. Besides the points noted above, the Mithra yasht was evidently written in a period of expansion. The western boundary had reached the Tigris but not the Euphrates; see ibid. xxvii. 104. Cf. also Olmstead, "Intertestamental Studies," JAOS, LVI (1936), 253, n. 40, and Debevoise, "Parthian Problems," AJSL, XLVII (1930/31), 81.