A Political History of Parthia/Chapter 2

by Neilson Carel Debevoise

 

CHAPTER II

EARLY FOREIGN RELATIONS

MITHRADATES THE FIRST established Parthia as a world power; whether or not his successors could maintain that position against the Seleucidae remained to be seen. Phraates II came to the throne about 138/37 b.c. on the death of his father Mithradates.^[1] He must have been very young, for his mother, whose name was Ri-⸢in⸣(?)-nu, acted as regent.^[2]

Babylonia remained for the next seven years in the hands of the Parthians, as cuneiform documents from there show;^[3] but the coinage of Phraates suggests that he spent little time there,^[4] occupied as he was with nomadic invaders in the east. Proof for Parthian control over Susa appears for the first time in a double-dated inscription of the early part of 130 b.c.;^[5] but, as has been pointed out, the conquest was probably made by Mithradates.

Phraates like his father treated the captive Demetrius in a kindly manner, for he too may have entertained some notion of a Syrian expedition. The Parthian might hope indirectly to control Syria if Demetrius, backed by Parthian arms and money, made a successful attack on the seat of the Seleucid power. Demetrius could not be won over so easily; with the aid of a friend he attempted to escape. Because of their swift horsemen and better knowledge of the terrain, the Parthians were able to recapture the fugitives and bring them before Phraates. The friend was pardoned and recompensed for his fidelity, but Demetrius was severely censured and returned to Hyrcania and his wife. Sometime afterward, when he had become the father of several children, guard was relaxed. Parental cares failed to restrain Demetrius, who fled again with the same friend but was caught almost within the boundaries of his own kingdom. He was led again to Phraates, who refused to see him but returned him to his wife and children. To keep Demetrius amused and make him ashamed, the Parthian king presented him with a pair of golden dice.^[6]

In the meantime Antiochus VII Sidetes (139/38–129 b.c.),^[7] having disposed of Tryphon, his rival to the Syrian throne, and defeated the Jews, prepared to secure his brother Demetrius and so remove him as a potential menace to his throne.^[8] He set out in 130 {{sc|b.c.]] with a large force, the size of which made a great impression upon later historians.^[9] The Parthian army, whose strength was likewise greatly exaggerated,^[10] was to have been supplemented by Saca mercenaries who had been hired but who failed to arrive until after the termination of hostilities.^[11] The troops of Antiochus, magnificently appointed and supported by a contingent of Jews under John Hyrcanus,^[12] were also joined by several monarchs who had formerly been Parthian tributaries.^[13] Antiochus was the victor in three battles. In one, on the river Lycus (Greater Zab),^[14] he defeated the Parthian general Idates and raised a trophy in honor of his victory.^[15] Another of the Parthian leaders, Enius, met his death at the hands of the people of Seleucia.^[16] Because of these successes Antiochus laid claim to the title of "Great."^[17] Other Parthian dependencies, when they saw him master of Babylonia (130 b.c.),^[18] believed the newly established empire tottering and joined the Seleucid monarch.

When winter closed in, Antiochus went into quarters in Media instead of retiring to Syria as Phraates had hoped. Because of the numbers of his troops he found it advisable to billet them in several cities, where they formed a burden to the populace, only a part of which was friendly. Since Phraates had been thrice vanquished by force, he turned to methods of greater finesse^[19] when the coming of spring brought about the renewal of the campaign. Messengers were sent to ask terms of peace from Antiochus, who named three conditions: Demetrius should be set free, all territory outside Parthia proper should be surrendered, and the Parthian king should pay tribute. Phraates peremptorily refused, as indeed he must except in the last extremity.^[20] At this critical juncture Phraates played his trump card by sending Demetrius back to Syria at the head of a Parthian squadron in the hope that he might thus force Antiochus to return home. But relief came from the people of the invaded territory themselves, for, exasperated by months of violence from the rough Seleucid mercenaries and by demands for provisions, these garrison cities became pro-Parthian. The Seleucid soldiers were undoubtedly weakened by prolonged inactivity, and, scattered as they were, they lost their numerical advantage over the Parthians. Incited by agents of Phraates, the inhabitants of the various cities rose simultaneously and attacked most of the troops quartered in their districts. Antiochus, who may have passed the winter at Ecbatana (Hamadan),^[21] hastened to aid the nearest contingent, only to discover that Phraates had anticipated that movement. He was urged by his staff not to engage the superior enemy forces, who had but to fly to the neighboring hills to escape pursuit by the Seleucid cavalry. Spring was at hand and travel difficult, but a successor of Alexander the Great could not give ground before a foe whom he had defeated three times, and the Parthian attack was received on the spot. The Seleucid troops, in poor condition, were easily put to flight by the Parthians, and Antiochus died, abandoned by all his men;^[22] perhaps he was killed in the fighting,^[23] or he may have committed suicide.^[24] So complete was the Parthian victory that Antiochus' young son Seleucus^[25] and his niece, a daughter of Demetrius,^[26]. were among those captured. Athenaeus, commander of the Syrian forces, was among the first to flee. The number of the slain was placed at the absurdly large figure of three hundred thousand.^[27] The body of Antiochus was treated with all respect due a monarch and was sent by Phraates to Syria in a silver casket. The daughter of Demetrius proved so charming to the Parthian king that he took her into his harem, and Seleucus was treated in a fashion befitting royalty. Thus the last serious attempt by a Seleucid monarch to regain the lost eastern provinces ended in complete failure. Incompetent kings and internal struggles rendered farther Parthian advance relatively easy.^[28]

Now that victory was his, Phraates regretted the release of Demetrius and ordered a body of cavalry to recapture him. Once free, however, Demetrius had sought his own country immediately, and the Parthian troops returned empty-handed.^[29]

Encouraged by his success against Antiochus, Phraates determined to invade Syria and entered Babylonia; but he was forced to abandon the whole plan by a Saca invasion in the east. Before leaving Mesopotamia to repel the invaders, he appointed his favorite, Himerus, a Hyrcanian,^[30] as governor.

The Saca mercenaries hired for the war against Antiochus were probably an advance group of this eastern horde whom Phraates attempted to quiet for a time by a subsidy. If the failure of the sources to mention the presence of Phraates in Babylonia to meet the attack of Antiochus in person is an indication that he was engaged elsewhere we may have additional evidence that the Saca invasion had begun by 130 b.c.^[31] The story that the mercenaries arrived after hostilities had ceased, and consequently were refused their pay, must not be taken too literally. They are said to have demanded either reimbursement for their trouble or employment against some other enemy. When this was refused, they began to ravage the Parthian territory as far west as Mesopotamia.^[32] Whether any considerable number of them ever reached the Land of the Two Rivers is doubtful.

The question of whence these invaders came and what caused their movement is part of the story of the Indian frontier and will be discussed in the succeeding chapter. Those who entered Parthia were probably a portion of the Sacaraucae (Saca Rawaca)^[33] together with a still larger body of the Massagetae and other groups attracted by the opportunity for new territory and plunder. The invasion naturally followed the two main branches of the great road (cf. pp. 205 f.), one leading to Mesopotamia through Merv, Hecatompylos, and Ecbatana, and the other, utilized when resistance to the westward advance turned the hordes southward, leading to India through Merv, Herat, and Seistan.^[34]

In the army which Phraates led eastward against the Sacae were Greek troops, made prisoners during the war with Antiochus. The Parthian is said to have treated these Greeks with great cruelty. Phraates perhaps counted on the fact that they were facing unknown foes far from their homeland and would therefore be fighting for their lives; but when in the battle which eventually resulted between the Parthians and the Sacae the Greeks saw their captors hard pressed, they at once deserted to the enemy. The tide was turned against the Parthians, and in the massacre which ensued, about 128 b.c.,^[35] Phraates perished.

Artabanus II, son of Priapatius and uncle of Phraates,^[36] inherited the problem of the Sacae, to whom he may have paid tribute.^[37] With the invaders in possession of the larger part of his kingdom, Artabanus was soon forced to arms. In an offensive movement somewhere in the region of Bactria against the "Tochari," perhaps the Yüeh-chi of the Chinese records,^[38] he received a wound in the forearm, possibly from a poisoned weapon, which almost immediately caused his death. This must have occurred in 124/23.^[39]

In the meantime Seleucia and the other cities of Mesopotamia had become dissatisfied with the rule of Himerus, the viceregent appointed by Phraates II in the year 129 b.c. Among other crimes he is charged with selling numerous Babylonians into Media as slaves.^[40] Besides these internal troubles Himerus was soon face to face with a new power to the south, a new state arising in the territory once occupied by the old Seleucid province of the Erythrean Sea created by Antiochus III before Molon's revolt.^[41] Shortly after 129 B.C. the ancient city of Alexandria-Antioch near the head of the Persian Gulf was refounded as Charax Spasinu by the Arab Hyspaosines, son of Sagdodonacus.^[42] Under the leadership of Hyspaosines the surrounding country was rapidly conquered, and thus was founded the kingdom of Characene. Not long after Himerus was appointed governor of Babylonia he engaged in a war with this king but was defeated.^[43] By 127 b.c. Hyspaosines was in possession of Babylon^[44] and probably also of Seleucia. His only dated coins are from 124/23 b.c., and by the next year Himerus again controlled central Babylonia and the mint city of Seleucia.^[45] He celebrated his victory by striking coins which bore a Victory and the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ ΝΙΚΗΦΟΡΟΥ,^[46] and his assumption of the title "king"^[47] probably dated from this time. With the Sacae in possession of the larger portion of the eastern empire, Himerus now occupied the most important territory still under Parthian control.

Other interesting details of this period are cited by Pinches from unpublished tablets in the British Museum of which not even English translations are available:

From this we learn that the Elamites made incursions in the neighborhood of the Tigris. Pilinussu, the general in Akkad, apparently carried on operations against another general, and seems to have gone to the cities of the Medes before Bāgā-asā [an Iranian name], the brother of the king. A man named Teʾudišī [Theodosius] also seems to have opposed the general in Akkad. Yet another inscription of the same period states that Tiʾimūṭušu [Timotheus], son of Aspasinē, went from Babylon to Seleucia (on the Tigris). …^[48]

Mithradates II, son and successor of Artabanus, ascended the throne about 123 b.c. As in the case of his illustrious predecessor of the same name, his reign was important, and eventually he was called "the Great."^[49] His first task was the reduction of Babylonia and the defeat of the Characenean ruler; bronze coins of Hyspaosines overstruck with the titles and portrait of Mithradates in 121/20 b.c. furnish proof that this was accomplished.^[50]

How much of eastern Parthia remained in the hands of the Sacae we do not know. Perhaps by this date the main force of the westward movement had been spent and the bulk of the invaders had turned southward.^[51]

Mithradates undoubtedly did recover much lost ground, for, as we have seen, he regained Babylonia and probably a number of provinces to the east.^[52] In far-off Delos at the shrine of Asclepius a dedicatory inscription of about 110 b.c. commemorates a "king of kings," Arsaces the Great, who to judge from the title must be Mithradates.^[53] Fragments of other records of about the same period, written in Greek, have been found in Babylonia.^[54] Another campaign of Mithradates was against Artavasdes of Armenia, as a result of which Tigranes, the eldest son of the Armenian king, was a hostage among the Parthians for a number of years.^[55] From this time onward Armenia was destined to play a major role in Parthian affairs. Eventually its ruling family became a branch of the royal Arsacid line, and its territory a bone of contention over which Rome and Parthia waged a long and bitter struggle.

The increased political importance of Parthia during the reign of Mithradates II was due in large part to the wealth accruing to her treasuries from the development of overland trade. While this certainly began before the Parthian invasion of Mesopotamia,^[56] unification of political control along the whole route from the Roman frontier to the point where the trade was taken over by Chinese merchants proved a tremendous stimulus to business. Our first definite information comes from Chinese sources,^[57] which report that about 128 b.c. the famous Chinese traveler Chang K'ien spent a year in that part of Bactria which lay east of the Oxus, territory then in possession of the Sacae. Sometime later the first Chinese embassy journeyed to the Parthian capital. The members of the mission, sent by Wu-ti (141–87 b.c.) of the Han dynasty, were received with great honor, and when they returned they were accompanied by a Parthian delegation which took with it ostrich eggs and conjurers.^[58] Trade between Parthia and China probably preceded rather than followed these events, although the movements of the Sacae and the Yüeh-chi obviously made such ventures hazardous from 165 b.c. onward.

Credit for the discovery and use of the monsoon as an aid to navigation in the Indian Ocean is given to a merchant named Hippalus about the year 100 b.c.^[59] As might be expected, full utilization of this knowledge was not made until later, roughly the middle of the first century of our era.^[60]

His widely extended empire undoubtedly forced Mithradates to delegate extraordinary powers to his subordinates and gave greater opportunities than ever for self-aggrandizement. The satrap of satraps, Gotarzes, who appears on a relief cut by Mithradates in the great rock at Behistun, must by that time already have embarked on a career which eventually brought him into open revolt against his sovereign. If we accept the restoration by Herzfeld,^[61] based on a copy made before the partial destruction of the relief, the inscription^[62] should read

¹ ΚΩΦΑΣΑΤΗΣ ΜΙΘΡΑΤΗΣ ΠΕΠ[ΙΣΤΕΥΜΕΝΟΣ . . . . . . ] ΓΩΤΑΡΖΗϹ

² ΣΑΤΡΑΠΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΣΑΤΡ[ΑΠΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΜΕΓΑΣ ΜΙΘΡΑΔΑ]ΤΗϹ

"Kophasates, Mithrates the overseer(?), . . . . . . , Gotarzes the satrap of satraps, (and) the Great King Mithradates."

The figures thus named represented Mithradates, the chief satrap Gotarzes,^[63] and three others, probably also satraps.

About 94 b.c., probably on the death of his father Artavasdes, the Armenian prince Tigranes,^[64] for some years past a hostage among the Parthians, was returned to his country and placed on the throne with the aid of Parthian troops. In payment for their services the Parthians received "seventy valleys."^[65] Tigranes proved an able monarch. Soon after his establishment as king of Armenia he formed an alliance with Mithradates of Pontus, who between 112 and 93 b.c. had built a great and powerful state to the northwest. To further cement the union he married Cleopatra, daughter of his ally. The two kings then proceeded to drive Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia from his throne.

In the meantime Mithradates of Parthia, safe from interference by the growing power of Armenia, pushed rapidly westward. Antiochus X Eusebes Philopator was contending for the doubtful honor of the Seleucid throne with Demetrius III Eucaerus and Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus. A certain Laodice, when she was attacked by the Parthians, who had now reached the Euphrates,^[66] summoned Antiochus, who fell in the fighting.^[67]

Rome deemed it time to interfere in 92 b.c. and commissioned Sulla to replace Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia on his throne. The real but not avowed object was to curb the growing power of Mithradates of Pontus. The rapid advance of Parthia toward the Roman frontier was no doubt a matter of some con­ cern. Orobazus was sent as ambassador of Parthia to meet Sulla on the Euphrates, probably near Melitene. The Parthian asked for the friendship of the Roman people and perhaps also an alliance both offensive and defensive. Schooled in Hellenistic rather than Latin tradition as Orobazus undoubtedly was, he assumed his request would be taken literally, and never dreamed it implied an offer to become tributary. Sulla had little realization of Parthia's military strength and still less of her future potentialities. In Roman eyes Parthia was overshadowed by the more obvious peril of Armenia and Pontus.^[68] Sulla overplayed his hand and treated Orobazus with some arrogance; nevertheless a treaty seems to have been concluded, or at any rate some understanding was reached.^[69] Orobazus was later executed because he had meekly submitted to the treatment accorded him by Sulla and had thus failed to uphold the dignity of Parthia.^[70] This diplomatic blunder on the part of Sulla must have drawn the three great proponents of oriental imperialism closer together than ever before. Mithradates of Parthia took to wife Aryazate,^[71] surnamed Automa, the daughter of the Great King Tigranes, and allied himself with Mithradates of Pontus.^[72]

Some business documents dated in the reign of Arsaces, king of kings, with a date corresponding to 93 b.c.,^[73] and astronomical ephemerides dated under Arsaces in years corresponding to 92/91 b.c.^[74] suggest that Mithradates was then in control of Babylonia. But early in 91 b.c.^[75] a Gotarzes (I), king, with his queens Ashiʾabatum and another whose name we cannot read,^[76] appears on tablets from Babylon. Gotarzes, the former satrap of satraps, had now set himself up as an independent ruler in Babylonia;^[77] but, as we shall see, there is evidence which leads us to believe that Mithradates still retained control of Iran and northern Mesopotamia, a district always more closely united with the plateau and with Syria than with Babylonia.^[78]

Shortly before his death Mithradates received as a prisoner the Seleucid king Demetrius III, nicknamed Eucaerus, brother of Philippus Epiphanes Philadelphus, the ruler of northern Syria, who had established his capital at Damascus. In 88 b.c. a war broke out between the two brothers. When Philip was besieged in Beroea (Aleppo), his ally Strato, dynast of Beroea, appealed for aid to a pro-Parthian Arab tyrant, Aziz,^[79] probably the ruler of Emesa (Homs), and to the Parthian governor of northern Mesopotamia, Mithradates Sinaces. The response was immediate, and Demetrius found himself the besieger besieged; forced at length to surrender, he was taken to Mithradates II, by whom he was well treated.^[80] This event, which took place in 87 b.c.,^[81] is the last dated occurrence in the reign of Mithradates II, and we have evidence which suggests that he died soon thereafter. Mithradates had controlled Iran, including Kurdistan, and northern Mesopotamia,^[82] while Gotarzes held sway in Babylonia.^[83] Upon the death of his great opponent the personal name of Gotarzes was immediately dropped from the tablets, since there was no longer necessity for a distinction between contenders for the title, and he appears simply as Arsaces, king.^[84]

Mithradates II had been a friend and ally of Tigranes of Armenia. On his death the latter felt free, not to say urged, to proceed against Gotarzes, who was perhaps not of the Arsacid line. Tigranes took back the seventy valleys;^[85] he invaded Gorduene, besides overrunning the region about Nineveh; and Adiabene, with the important center of Arbela, fell into his hands.^[86] Thence he advanced into Media, where he burned the royal palace at Adrapana (Artaman) on the great road to the west of Ecbatana.^[87] Atropatene became his vassal state. Eventually Tigranes carried his arms victoriously throughout northern Mesopotamia and as far west as Syria and Phoenicia, flaunting in the very faces of the Parthians their customary title, king of kings,^[88] never claimed by Gotarzes.

Gotarzes continued to control Babylonia until 81/80 b.c.^[89] But in April, 80, there appears on the tablets an Orodes (I),^[90] the use of whose personal name again suggests conflict with the reigning Arsaces, presumably Gotarzes, who is henceforth no longer known to us. Orodes ruled but a brief span, for in 76/75 b.c. an Arshakan, king, and his sister-wife, Isbubarza, queen, appear on the tablets.^[91] This must be Sinatruces, who was undoubtedly on the throne by that date.^[92] Sinatruces^[93] was an old man of eighty^[94] when recalled from among the Sacaraucae to rule over Parthia. Although assisted by these nomads, he presumably was related to the Arsacidae,^[95] and this would explain why he was summoned to end a period of dissension. In the winter of 72/71 b.c. Mithradates of Pontus requested assistance against the Romans, but the aged Sinatruces was in no position to antagonize such powerful opponents and refused.^[96] The old king died in 70 or 69 b.c. and was succeeded by his son Phraates III.

With the reigns of Sinatruces and his successors we reach a period for which our sources are both more extensive and easier of interpretation. Let us turn therefore from the western part of the empire to the eastern frontier and examine the events of the past hundred years, events which molded and shaped new boundaries and new customs and which had a powerful effect on the politics of the empire as a whole.

 

1. Justin xlii. 1. 1.
2. 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. 53 and p. 13.
3. A copy of an old astronomical work, dated 27 Aiaru, 111 a.e., 174 s.e. (to be corrected to 175 s.e.; cf. same date correctly written in Reisner, Hymnen, No. 5, referred to below), i. e., 137 b.c., Epping and Strassmaier in ZA, VI (1891), 228 and 244; a copy of an ancient hymn, dated same year, George A. Reisner, Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit (Berlin, 1896), No. 5; a copy of another, dated 114 a.e., i.e., 134 b.c., ibid., No. 35, Pl. 153; a tablet dated in year 6 of "Arʾsiuqqa, king" (i.e., about 132/31 b.c. on the probable assumption that this is Phraates II), Clay, Babylonian Records, II, No. 51. Ephemerides from slightly later years calculate a number of dates during this period and always give them to Arsaces; the last is 180 s.e., i. e., 132 b.c., Kugler, Sternkunde, II, 446. The next document is dated by Antiochus, after his invasion of Mesopotamia; see pp. 31 f.
4. Wroth, Parthia, pp. 16–19; note preponderance of drachms, a denomination struck almost exclusively in the east. No coins of Phraates II were found at Seleucia; see McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, pp. 182 f.
5. Cumont, "Nouvelles inscr. grecques de Suse," CR, 1932, pp. 280 f.; dated 117 a.e. (not 116 as restored by Cumont), Xandicus (Addaru), 181 s.e., i.e., 13 March–10 April, 130 b.c. (not 131 as in Cumont).
6. Justin xxxviii. 9. 2–10.
7. See the account of Seleucid history in this period by E. R. Bevan in CAH, VIII, chap. xvi.
8. Cf. Trog. Pomp. xxxv: "Repetit inde superioris Asiae motus factos per Araetheum et Arsacem Parthum." The problem of who Araetheus was appears to have been neglected. In addition to the sources cited below for this campaign, see Euseb. Chron., ed. Karst, p. 120; [[Author:Livy}} Epit. lix; Orosius v. 10. 8; Val. Max. ix. 1 ext. 4; cf. also J, II C, pp. 166 f.
9. Justin xxxviii. 10. 2 says 80,000 foot and 300,000 others, most of whom were noncombatants; Diod. Sic. xxxiv. 17. 1 says that 300,000 exclusive of camp followers were killed; Orosius v. 10. 8 numbers the fighting force at 100,000 and supernumeraries at 200,000. Bevan, House of Sel., II, 242, speaks of the army as numbering 80,000, but on his p. 247 mentions the loss of 300,000 men! Rawlinson, Sixth Mon., pp. 98 f., is incorrect in his statement that Orosius gives the camp followers as one-third the fighting men. Even the smallest figures given above are absurdly large. The campaign is mentioned by Posidonius Hist. xiv. fr. 9 (J, II A, p. 227) in Athen. Deip. xii. 540 and by Josephus Bell. i. 50 and 62.
10. Porphyry in Euseb. Chron. fr. 32. 19 (J, II B, p. 1217); Moses Chor. ii. 2. 4.
11. Justin xlii. 1. 1–2.
12. Nic. Dam. fr. 92 (J, II A, p. 381) in Josephus Ant. xiii. 251–52.
13. Justin xxxviii. 10. 5.
14. PW, art. "Lykos," No. 12.
15. Nic. Dam. fr. 92 in Josephus loc. cit.
16. Diod. Sic. xxxiv. 19.
17. Justin xxxviii. 10. 6.
18. A cuneiform copy of an old hymn is dated under Antiochus, 22 Aiaru, 182 s.e., i.e., June 2, 130 b.c.; see Reisner, Hymnen, text No. 25. On his p. xiv the date is given as "129 b.c. (?130?)."
19. Justin xxxviii, 10. 7 ff.
20. Diod. Sic. xxxiv. 15.
21. Suggested by Bevan, House of Sel., II, 244.
22. Justin xxxviii. 10. 10; cf. Diod. Sic. xxxiv. 16–17.
23. Justin loc. cit. Orosius v. 10; Porphyry fr. 32. 19 (J, II B, p. 1217); Josephus Ant. xiii. 253 and 271; Posidonius Hist. xvi. fr. 11 (J, II A, p. 228) in Athen. Deip. x. 439; Chronicon Maroniticum in CSCO Syr., 3. ser., t. IV, Versio (1903–5), p. 42, lines 14 f.
24. Appian Syr. 68; Aelian De natura animalium x. 34.
25. Porphyry in Euseb. Chron. (J, II B, pp. 1217 fr. 32. 19).
26. Justin xxxviii. 10. 10.
27. Diod. Sic. xxxiv. 17.
28. Strabo xiv. 5. 2.
29. Justin xxxviii. 10. 11 and xxxix. 1. 1.
30. Justin xlii. 1. 3; Posidonius Hist. xvi. fr. 13 (J, II A, p. 228) in Athen. Deip. xi. 466. Diod. Sic. xxxiv. 21 gives the name as Εὐήμερος.
31. As Tarn points out in CAH, IX, 581 f.
32. Joan. Antioch. fr. 66. 2 (FHG, IV, 561).
33. PW, art. "Sacaraucae"; Tarn, "Sel.-Parth. Studies," Proc. Brit. Acad., XVI (1930), 111–13, and in CAH, IX, 582 f.
34. Tarn, "Sel.-Parth. Studies," pp. 117 f..
35. Justin xlii. 1; McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, p. 183.
36. Justin xlii. 2. 1.
37. Joan. Antioch. fr. 66 (FHG IV, 561).
38. Tarn, "Sel.-Parth. Studies," pp. 106–11 and 115–16, believes the Yüeh-chi are historically improbable in this particular case and suggests the Pasiani, whose name might have been miscopied as Asiani, for which the name Tochari would then have been substituted, in the text of Justin xlii. 2. 2. H. W. Bailey, "Ttaugara," Bull. School of Or. Studies, VIII (1935–37), 912, denies that ārśi = Asii.
39. Justin xlii. 2. 2; McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, p. 183. The "Victory" coins of 124/23 were probably struck at Seleucia by Himerus at the order of Artabanus.
40. Diod. Sic. xxxiv. 21. Posidonius Hist. xvi. fr. 13 (J, II A, p. 228) in Athen. Deip. xi. 466 records a banquet given by Lysimachus of Babylon for Himerus and 300 Seleucians (the Senate?).
41. Polyb. v. 46.
42. On Charax see PW, arts. "Mesene" and "Alexandreia," No. 13.
43. Trog. Pomp. xlii mentions a war with Mesene, a part of Characene.
44. T. G. Pinches, "A Babylonian Tablet Dated in the Reign of Aspasinē," Babyl. and Or. Record, IV (1889/90), 131–35; Terrien de Lacouperie, "Hyspaosines, Kharacenian King of Babylon," ibid., pp. 136–44; Pinches, The Old Testament (2d ed.), pp. 481–84; Tarn in CAH, IX, 584.
45. Until recently the attribution of certain coins to Himerus has been considered reasonably definite: Gardner, Parthian Coinage, pp. 7 and 34; Wroth, Parthia, pp. xxi, xxiii, and 23 (somewhat doubtful); E. T. Newell, "A Parthian Hoard," Num. Chron., 5th ser., IV (1924), 169 ff.; Newell, Mithradates of Parthia and Hyspaosines of Characene ("Numismatic Notes and Monographs," No. 26 [New York, 1925]), pp. 13 f.. Mr. Newell now prefers to assign them to Phraates II (in Survey of Persian Art, ed. Arthur Upham Pope, in press), following Maurice Dayet, "Un tétradrachme arsacide inédit," Arethuse, II (1925), 63–66. The problem hinges on the only dated coin of Himerus, 189 s.e., i.e., 123/22 b.c., now considered by Mr. Newell to be of questionable status.
46. Wroth, Parthia, p. 23, No. 2; his other coins bear the title ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ. The titles at once suggest Mithradates II; but the portraits will not allow this identification, and, if Himerus is rejected, Phraates remains the only other possibility.
47. Diod. Sic. xxxiv. 21 and the coins cited in the previous note.
48. Pinches, The Old Testament (2d. ed.), p. 483. The words in brackets are my own.
49. Trog. Pomp. xlii; Justin xlii. 2. 3.
50. Newell, Mithradates of Parthia and Hyspaosines of Characene, pp. 11 f.
51. Tarn, "Sel.-Parth. Studies," Proc. Brit. Acad., XVI (1930), 116–19, believes that the Chinese sources prove the Parthians were in possession of Merv by 115 b.c. and suggests that this reconquest was due to a hypothetical "king of the campaign coins," a joint ruler controlling the eastern provinces. As Wroth, Parthia, pp. xxxi–xxxii, had already pointed out, these coins cannot on numismatic grounds be assigned to Mithradates II but must be later. A study of a large hoard of Mithradates II strongly confirms this view; see Newell, "Coinage of Parthia" (in Survey of Persian Art, in press). McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, p. 211, suggests that the "campaign coins" might plausibly be assigned to Mithradates' successor, Sinatruces, who struck them to celebrate his early victories as he advanced from exile among the "Scythians"; cf. p. 52.
52. Justin xlii. 2. 4–5 states that he added many peoples to the empire. Perhaps the Bactrian conquests, taken from the Scyths according to Strabo xi. 9. 2, should be placed in his reign.
53. OGIS, I, No. 430; S. Reinach, "Fouilles de Délos," Bull. de correspondance hellénique, VII (1883), 349–53; A. von Sallet, "Beiträge zur antiken Münzkunde: Arsaciden-Inschrift von Delos," Zeitschrift für Numismatik, XII (1885), 372–75.
54. Bernard Haussoullier, "Inscriptions grecques de Babylone," Klio, IX (1909), 353, a stone dated 121/20 b.c., and 352 f., a tablet dated 110/9 or 111/10 b.c.; cf. M. I. Rostovtzeff and C. B. Welles, "A Parchment Contract of Loan from Dura-Europus on the Euphrates," Yale Classical Studies, II (1931), 40 f. See also Woldemar Schileico, "Ein babylonischer Weihtext in griechischer Schrift," Archiv für Orientforschung, V (1928–29), 11–13.
55. Strabo xi. 14. 15; Justin xxxviii. 3. 1; cf. Trog. Pomp. xlii, where the war is mentioned.
56. G. M. A. Richter, "Silk in Greece," American Journal of Archaeology, XXXIII (1929), 27–33.
57. A. Wylie, "History of the Heung-noo in Their Relations with China," Journ. Anthropol. Inst., Ill (1874), 401–51, and V (1876), 41–80; Thomas W. Kingsmill, "The Intercourse of China with Eastern Turkestan and the Adjacent Countries in the Second Century b.c.," JRAS, 1882, pp. 74–104; Wylie, "Notes on the Western Regions," Journ. An­thropol. Inst., X (1881), 20–73, and XI (1882), 83–115; Friedrich Hirth, China and the Roman Orient (Shanghai, 1885); Edouard Chavannes, Les mémoires de Se-ma Ts'ien (Paris, 1895–1905), pertinent chapters not published, but see Introduction; Sylvain Lévi and É. Chavannes, "L'Itinéraire d'Ou K'ong," JA, 9. sér., VI (1895), 341–84; Edward Harper Parker, "Chinese Knowledge of Early Persia," Asiatic Quarterly Review, 3d ser., XV (1903), 144–69; O. Franke, Beiträge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Tiirkvolker und Scythen Zentralasiens (APAW, 1904, No. 1 [part translated into English in Indian Antiquary, XXXV (1906), 33–47]); Chavannes, "Les pays d'Occident d'après le Wei lio," T'oung pao, 2. sér., VI (1905), 519–71; Chavannes, "Trois généraux chinois de la dynastie des Han orientaux," ibid., VII (1906), 210–69; Chavannes, "Les pays d'Occident d'apres le Heou Han chou," ibid .y VIII (1907), 149–234; Friedrich Hirth, "The Story of Chang K'ien, China's Pioneer in Western Asia," JAOS, XXXVII (1917), 89–152; J. J. M. de Groot, Chinesische Urkunden zur Geschichte Asiens. I. Die Hunnen der vorchristlichen Zeit; II. Die Westlande Chinas in der vorchristlichen Zeit (Berlin, 1921–26); Léon Wieger, Textes historiques (2. ed.; Hien-Hien, 1922–23); O. Franke, Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches. I. Das Altertum und das Werden des Konfuzianischen Staates (Berlin, 1930); McGovern, Early Empires of Central Asia (in press). Of these, the works of Hirth, Franke, and de Groot and the translations of Chavannes are the most trustworthy.
58. Hirth, "Story of Chang K'ien," JAOS XXXVII (1917), 107; on the date see ibid., p. 135.
59. Date uncertain. See PW, art. "Hippalos," No. 3; W. L. Westermann, "On Inland Transportation and Communication in Antiquity," Political Science Quarterly, XLIII (1928), 384 f.
60. E. H. Warmington, The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India (Cambridge, 1928), pp. 35 ff.
61. Am Tor von Asien (Berlin, 1920), pp. 35 ff.
62. OGIS, I, No. 431.
63. This might be the Gotarzes of a.d. 38–51 (see pp. 166–74), but there are several arguments against such attribution. Tacitus Ann. xi. 10 gives the name of the ruler contemporary with Gotarzes II as Meherdates, a form definitely later than that of the inscription. The forms of the letters agree with the earlier rather than the later date. Finally, the name Gotarzes ceases to appear in the same year as the commonly accepted date for the death of Mithradates II, 87 b.c. On this point see p. 44 and Herzfeld, Am Tor von Asien, pp. 39 f.
64. PW, art. "Tigranes," No. 1.
65. Strabo xi. 14. 15.
66. Plut. Sulla 5.
67. Josephus Ant. xiii. 371. The text calls her queen of the Γαλιηνῶν—perhaps an attempt by a copyist to make them Gauls. Some correction is demanded. The Sameni (see Steph. Byz. s.v.), an otherwise unknown Arab tribe, have been suggested. See Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, pp. 80 f., and J. Dobiáš, "Les premiers rapports des Romains avec les Parthes," Archiv or., Ill (1931), 221–23 (full discussion and bibliography).
68. On the mission of Sulla and the meeting with the Parthian ambassador see Plut. Sulla 5; Livy Epit. lxx; Ruf. Fest. 15; Vell. Pat. ii. 24. 3. Dobiáš, op. cit., pp. 215–56, gives an excellent treatment of the subject.
69. Livy Epit. c refers to the treaty with Lucullus; but Ruf. Fest. 15' Florus i. 46. 4, and Orosius vi. 13. 2, all following Livy, seem to indicate some agreement with Sulla. Cf. Dobiáš, op. cit., pp. 219 f.
70. Plut. Sulla 5.
71. Our source, Avroman parchment I, is dated 225 of an unspecified era which, following the arguments of E. H. Minns, "Parchments of the Parthian Period from Avroman in Kurdistan," JHS, XXXV (1915), 22–65, I take to be the Seleucid, making the date 87 b.c. If it were the Arsacid era, the date would be 23 b.c. The question cannot yet be settled with certainty; but the Avroman parchments show undoubted relationships to contemporary Babylonian business documents, which in every known case where single dating is found employ the Seleucid, not the Arsacid, era. The year 87, not 23, is the time when a Parthian king would boastfully place his Armenian wife between his two sister-wives in his titulary. Tigranes II, who cannot have come to the throne much before 20 b.c., likewise bore, however, according to his coins, the title "great king"; see E. T. Newell, Some Unpublished Coins of Eastern Dynasts ("Numismatic Notes and Monographs," No. 30 [New York, 1926]), p. 13. On the arguments for the Arsacid era see Rostovtzeff and Welles, "A Parchment Contract Loan," Yale Classical Studies, II (1931), 41 f. Other articles on the Avroman documents are: Ludwig Mitteis, "Miszellen," Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung, XXXVI (1915), 425–29; A. Cowley, "The Pahlavi Document from Avroman," JRAS, 1919, pp. 147–54; P. M. Meyer, Juristische Papyri (Berlin, 1920), pp. 120–24; J. M. Unvala, "On the Three Parchments from Avroman in Kurdistan," Bull. School of Or. Studies, I (1920), 125–44.
72. Appian Mith. 15.
73. R. Campbell Thompson, A Catalogue of the Late Babylonian Tablets in the Bodleian Library, Oxford (London, 1927), pp. 28 f.; Strassmaier in ZA, III (1888), 133 f.
74. 156 a.e., [220] s.e., on one; 15[6] a.e., [220] s.e., on the other. See Kugler, Sternkunde, II, 500.
75. The date in Reisner, Hymnen, No. 51, was miswritten by the ancient scribe as 6 II Addaru, 155 a.e., 221 s.e.; but since 155 a.e. had no second Addaru the Arsacid date must be changed to 157 to correspond to the correct Seleucid one. The Arsaces of this hymn is almost certainly Gotarzes, for in 89 b.c. Queen Ashiʾabatum appears as his consort; see ZA, VI (1891), 222.
76. Reisner, loc. cit. Minns, "Avroman Parchments," JHS, XXXV (1915), 34 f. texts h-j, transliterates the gašan sign as bêltu ("lady"), whereas ibid., p. 35, n, and p. 36, p, he transliterates exactly the same sign as šarratu ("queen"). This is correct, though confusing, for the gašan sign may be transliterated either way; but Tarn in CAH, IX, 587, attempts to deduce historical evidence on the basis of the titles bêltu and šarratu! Strassmaier in ZA, VIII (1893), 112, the source for both Minns and Tarn, was aware of the double value: ". . . . bilit (oder: šarratu)."
77. The sole fact which these tablets provide is that Gotarzes was then recognized as king in Babylon; the inference regarding the extent of his territory remains uncertain.
78. Gotarzes and his immediate successor, Orodes, are the only Parthian kings in all the numerous documents of the period mentioned by name rather than by their title Arsaces. The conclusion is obvious: the name was necessary to denote which Arsaces was meant, and we have here evidence of conflict between Mithradates and his former satrap of satraps. On the parallel usage of the coins cf. McDowell, Coins from Seleucia, p. 223.
79. Mss., Ζίζον.
80. Josephus Ant. xiii. 384–86. Justin xlii. 4 is confused between Mithradates II and Mithradates III; Trog. Pomp. xlii was apparently not the source of error, since he places a number of kings between Mithradates and Orodes.
81. The last coins of Demetrius are dated 88/87 b.c.; see Ernest Babelon, Les rois de Syrie, d'Arménie, et de Commagène (Paris, 1890), p. clxxii, and J. Eckhel, Doctrina numorum veterum, III (2d ed.; Vindobonae, 1828), 245.
82. Note the Iranian characteristics of his drachms, Wroth, Parthia, Pl. VIII, on which Mithradates appears as an old man. Ms. Avroman I, dated 87 b.c., was found in Kurdistan. On Mesopotamia see p. 48.
83. Tablets dated in the reign of "Arsaces who is called Gotarzes" continue until 87 b.c.; see Epping and Strassmaier in ZA, VI (1891), 222 and 226.
84. Reisner, Hymnen, Nos. 27, 49, and 55; Epping and Strassmaier in ZA, V (1890), 355.
85. This is implied in his subsequent offer (Memnon [FHG, III, 556 f., fr. 58. 2]) to return them.
86. Strabo xi. 14. 15; Plut. Lucullus 21 and 26.
87. Isid. Char. Mans. Parth. 6; cf. Orosius vi. 4. 9. Plut. Lucullus 14 says that Tigranes cut the Parthians off from Asia.
88. Appian Syr. 48; Plut. Lucullus 14; Josephus Ant. xiii. 419–21; Justin xl. 1; Eutrop. Brev. vi. 8.
89. [167] a.e., ⸢2⸣31 s.e., i.e., 81/80 b.c., Reisner, Hymnen, No. 49. The insertion in the Parthian line of an "Artabanus II" to rule from 88 to 77 b.c. has been suggested by Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, p. 81 and n. 1, followed by Wroth, Parthia, p. xxxi, but this is now generally rejected; see p. 16, n. 66. The coins formerly assigned to him must follow those of Mithradates II, and they should be given to Gotarzes, Orodes, or Sinatruces.
90. Strassmaier in ZA, III (1888), 135, and VIII (1893), 112; Epping in ZA, IV (1889), 78. E. Schrader in SPAW, 1890, p. 1327, n. 1, on the basis of a re-examination by Bezold of the tablet published in ZA, VIII, 112, rejects šar šarrâni, but he restores it in his transliteration. Strassmaier's cuneiform copy should certainly be read for Warrant. See also Kugler (Sternkunde, II, 447, No. 26), who follows Strassmaier.
91. Strassmaier in ZA, VIII (1893), 112; Kugler, Sternkunde, II, 447 f.
92. Sinatruces died in 70 or 69 b.c.; see Phlegon fr. 12. 6 (J, II B, p. 1164). He ruled seven years according to Lucian Long. 15.
93. Spellings are: Sintricus, Appian Mith. 104; Sinatrocles or Sinatroces, Lucian Long. 15; Sinatruces, Phlegon fr. 12. 7 (J, II B, p. 1164).
94. Lucian Long. 15; cf. his appearance on the coins, Wroth, Parthia, pp. 42 f. and Pl X.
95. Rawlinson, Sixth Mon., p. 139 and n. 4, suggests that he was a son of Mithradates I and a brother of Phraates II. Had he been a candidate from among the Sacaraucae, they would surely have selected a younger man.
96. Memnon (FHG, III, 549, fr. 43.2).