Читать книгу The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India - Getzel M. Cohen - Страница 11

The Sources

MESOPOTAMIA

Greek and Latin Literary Sources. The literary sources for the study of the Hellenistic settlements in Mesopotamia include what I would call the traditional Greek and Latin literary sources—notices, for example, in Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Isidore of Charax, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Ammianus Marcellinus, as well as Stephanos of Byzantium, early Christian travelers, and various Byzantine chroniclers.¹

Numismatic Evidence. There is evidence for minting activity at a number of places in Mesopotamia: for example, KARRHAI, EDESSA, NISIBIS, SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, and URUK. In addition, quasi-municipal coins were produced at ANTIOCH on the Kallirhoe (EDESSA) and ANTIOCH in Mygdonia (Nisibis).

Archaeological Evidence. Archaeological evidence from Hellenistic Mesopotamia is quite spotty. At APAMEIA in northern Mesopotamia, rescue excavation has revealed the outline of the city wall and demonstrated that the town was laid out on a north-south orthogonal grid.² The only site in Hellenistic Mesopotamia that has been systematically excavated is SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, and even that has been quite spotty. The University of Michigan and, more recently, the University of Turin have excavated there. The site is quite large, however, and excavation has been conducted only in selected parts of the city. Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that archaeologists reached down to the Hellenistic level in only some of the excavated areas. At BABYLON, the earliest remains of a Greek theater date from the early Hellenistic period. In addition, Greek pottery, terracottas, and glass pastes, as well as Rhodian and Thasian amphora handles, have been found at Babylon. And in the Persian Gulf, excavation by Danish and, subsequently, French teams has revealed the existence of a previously unknown Hellenistic presence on the island of Failaka/IKAROS. The remains of imported pottery found at these and other sites provide evidence for trade relations with the Aegean basin. At the same time, the remains of locally produced ceramic wares have been variously interpreted as reflecting strong Greek influence resulting from the settlement patterns of the Greeks (Hannestad) or from the spread of “Hellenistic tastes of the palate” (Potts). In either case, however, the driving force (the arrival of Greeks in these areas) and the result (the adoption of Greek forms) were the same.³

In addition, I would call attention to four other sources of information for Hellenistic Mesopotamia, which I list here in rough chronological order: (a) cuneiform documents, (b) seals and sealings, (c) the Babylonian Talmud,⁴ (d) the Syriac chronicles.⁵ The geographic focus of these varies somewhat. The cuneiform tablets as well as the seals and sealings are found in Babylonia (i.e., southern Mesopotamia) and provide information for that region. The Syriac chronicles give some information about northern Mesopotamia, while the Babylonian Talmud provides bits of information about towns and regions in both northern and southern Mesopotamia.

Cuneiform Documents. Babylonian culture in general and the use of cuneiform in particular were severely affected by the arrival of the Macedonians and Greeks following Alexander’s conquest.⁶ In 1931 M. San Nicolo remarked that more than 7,000 cuneiform documents dealing with juridical and administrative matters from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. were then known, but only around 150 were attested for the third and second centuries.⁷ Discoveries since that time have increased these overall numbers but have not significantly changed the disparity in the number of documents between the earlier and later periods. This disparity is a clear reflection of the fact that following the conquest of Alexander a major change in record keeping and writing took place: clay tablets were replaced by papyri and parchment; Akkadian was replaced by Aramaic and Greek. The replacement of clay tablets by papyri and parchment was—for the historian of antiquity—unfortunate; while some of the relatively few tablets from Hellenistic Babylonia have survived, none of the far more numerous papyri and parchment from that area have. All that survives of the latter are the bullae that enclosed them. Finally, in the second century B.C. we find Greek script being used to transcribe Akkadian texts.⁸ The last datable cuneiform that has survived is the text of an astronomical diary from 75 A.D. However, it is possible that cuneiform was still being sporadically used as late as the second or possibly even the third century A.D.⁹

Many of the surviving cuneiform tablets are from URUK. By contrast, at SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, where over 30,000 sealings have been discovered (see below), only one cuneiform tablet has thus far been published. Found in situ (though the text was written at Kutha), it is dated to 225/4 B.C.¹⁰ The cuneiform documents found at URUK deal primarily with a few types of business transactions, such as bills of sale.¹¹ As such, they are important sources of information about economic life and administration in Hellenistic Babylonia.¹² And a cuneiform text from an archive in URUK has provided the only attestation to date for a previously unknown settlement, ANTIOCH on the Ishtar Canal.¹³

In addition to the many individual cuneiform tablets recording, for example, letters, business documents, religious and literary texts, we may—somewhat arbitrarily—distinguish at least two broad categories of cuneiform texts: astronomical diaries and chronicles.¹⁴ The astronomical diaries are collections of cuneiform texts from Babylonia in which astronomical data and political events were recorded.¹⁵ The oldest extant texts date to 652/1 B.C., the most recent to 61/0 B.C. The astronomical diaries were monthly reports, filled with daily entries as observations were made.¹⁶ A typical entry would normally contain information relating to the following topics: (a) the moon, (b) planets, (c) solstices, equinoxes, and Sirius phenomena, (d) meteors, comets, etc., (e) weather, (f) the prices of commodities (actually, the purchasing power of the shekel in relation to five basic foodstuffs as well as wool), (g) the river level, and (h) historical events.¹⁷ The sections dealing with historical events are quite uneven. In the texts one frequently encounters the word alteme, “I heard.” And this quite accurately reflects the situation. As A.J. Sachs and H. Hunger note, the compilers of the diaries lived in Babylon and for their historical information relied on whomever or whatever they happened to hear. For the student of Hellenistic settlements the diaries and other cuneiform texts offer at least two delightful gifts: evidence for a previously unknown foundation—SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates (Babylonia)—and much interesting information about Hellenistic BABYLON and (to a lesser extent) SELEUKEIA on the Tigris.

Babylonian chronicles (i.e., chronographic texts) are essentially a subset of Mesopotamian historiography.¹⁸ The extant Babylonian chronicles focus especially on the second half of the second millennium and the first millennium down to the first century B.C.¹⁹ As A. K. Grayson points out, the documents are related from the perspective of typology, source material, outlook, and phraseology. They represent “the highest achievement of Babylonian historians with regard to the writing of history in a reliable and objective manner.”²⁰ The texts as preserved are fragmentary; nevertheless, enough remains to indicate that if they had been completely preserved we would have a continuous native history of Babylonia from the eighth to the third century B.C.

Seals, Sealings, and Bullae. Seals were used throughout the ancient Greek world and the Near East to attest the authenticity or integrity of an attached document or object.²¹ In Hellenistic Babylonia, as elsewhere, seals were widely used to identify owners and the object or documents with which they were associated and to prevent unwarranted access to a document or container to which they were attached. The impressions made by the seals are commonly referred to as “sealings.” The sealings were made on clay or bitumen objects, most frequently on bullae or on single clay seals that were attached directly to leather, parchment, or papyrus documents. Examples of these have been found at SELEUKEIA, BABYLON, URUK, and Nippur; however, it is only at Seleukeia that these have been found in a controlled archaeological context.²² It is important to bear in mind that the documents—which were written on perishable materials—have not survived. Only the bullae, the seals, and the document sealings have survived.

“Bulla” refers to a clay envelope that was stamped by one or more seals and wrapped around a papyrus or parchment document (the term “bulla” is used somewhat incorrectly, since the Mesopotamian object that is conventionally described by modern scholars as a “bulla” has nothing in common with Roman bullae). As R. H. McDowell explains, “The written sheet was rolled or folded and tied around several times with a cord. A thick strip of clay or bitumen was then pressed over the cord to encircle the document completely. Rostovtzeff has aptly compared this form to a napkin ring.²³ While the material was still soft, seals were impressed on its outer surface. A bulla as we find it, separated from its document, is, then, a spheroidal lump with a large tube-like hole through the center. The outer face is composed of a series of facets, each bearing a seal impression. The inner surface of the ring shows a series of grooves left by the now disintegrated cord. Since many of the bullae have survived only as fragments, it is largely the presence of these grooves that enables one to distinguish a bulla fragment from a flat appended sealing. The size of a bulla was dependent upon two factors, the diameter of the rolled or folded document and the number of seals whose impressions were required.” With the passage of time the papyrus or parchment documents that were enclosed by the bullae disintegrated or were destroyed; all that remains today are the (fragments of the) bullae. At SELEUKEIA, URUK, and Nippur the extant bullae—as well as the clay impressions—date from the early part of the third century B.C. to the middle of the second.

Rostovtzeff pointed out that the bulla was a compromise between the Babylonian and Greek systems of sealing documents. He noted that “the Babylonian system is represented by the cuneiform tablets of the Hellenistic period found . . . [in] Babylonia. . . . The seals of the contracting parties and of the witnesses were impressed into the wet clay of the tablet itself.”²⁴ On the other hand, the Greeks normally wrote on papyrus or parchment. Under the Greek system, a document written on papyrus or parchment was sealed with single clay lumps on which the seals of the contracting parties and the witnesses were impressed.

The bullae normally have one or more impressions on them. In many instances at Seleucid URUK the impressions on the bullae and single clay seals were made by the same type of seals that were impressed on cuneiform tablets.²⁵ Bullae with one or two sealings, for example, were probably documents drawn up by an individual that required a notary. Bullae with four or more sealings—the majority of those found at SELEUKEIA—normally enclosed documents that required witnesses. We can distinguish two broad categories of seal impressions: those made with the seals of private persons and those made with official seals. Some of the latter bear inscriptions mentioning a particular office or registration, while others refer to various taxes. Furthermore, the impressions on the bullae are often similar to the types—monarchs, deities, mythological figures, and symbols—found on Seleucid coins.²⁶

The discoveries of the bullae and single clay seals have provided useful and dated information about both the social and economic history of Hellenistic Babylonia and the history of its art. For example, they have shed important light on the method of registering business documents under the Seleucids.²⁷ By extension, of course, we can learn something of the nature of business transactions in these regions. In addition, many of the bullae provide information about taxation in Babylonia under the Seleucids. Finally, as Rostovtzeff has noted, the bullae “give us a glimpse into the Seleucid archives of Babylonia [and] . . . furnish us with a set of official seals well dated, which corresponds to another set of objects—the coins.”²⁸

Archaeological excavation has uncovered, among other objects, both bullae and terra-cotta figurines at Seleukeia.²⁹ Interestingly, the figurines date from both the Seleucid and the Parthian periods; the bullae, on the other hand, date only from the Seleucid. No Parthian sealings have yet been found. The evidence is admittedly negative, but nevertheless potentially significant: it undoubtedly reflects the difference between the Seleucid and the Parthian approaches to administration and bureaucracy.

Finally, for the historian of art the study of the motifs found on the seals and bullae as well as the style of carving can also be rewarding; it is, however, a very complex exercise.³⁰ Generally speaking, scholars have been able to distinguish Greek and Oriental iconography; within the latter category—which is much smaller than the former—it is possible to distinguish Babylonian and Achaemenid types.³¹ It is interesting and instructive to try to trace the nature and extent of these influences in the extant impressions. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether one can draw any definitive conclusions about the ethnic background and composition of the population of a particular city based solely on the typology of the extant seals and bullae of that city.³²

The study of the bullae and sealings may throw some light on the Hellenization of Babylonia. It is interesting to note that at the beginning of the Seleucid hegemony in Babylonia cuneiform tablets were still the accepted method for maintaining records. By the beginning of the second century B.C. these tablets were being supplanted by papyri and parchment. Furthermore, a large number of names and motifs on the bullae and single clay seals were Greek. The Hellenizing tendency is quite clear. What is less clear is the extent to which this tendency spread among the native population.³³

Greek Inscriptions. A clay tablet from the Parthian period and inscribed in Greek has been discovered at BABYLON.³⁴ The inscription is a list of ephebes and neoi. Undoubtedly the tablet was inscribed by persons of Graeco-Macedonian descent. Clay tablets were, of course, the common writing material in southern Mesopotamia. Irrespective of whether the inscriber was driven by choice or necessity, the tablet offers a rather nice example of the adoption of a native practice by the descendants of the colonists.³⁵ In addition, other Greek inscriptions provide information regarding such places as SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, IKAROS, ANTIOCH in Persis, and URUK as well as BABYLON.

BACTRIA AND INDIA

Our knowledge of the Graeco-Macedonian settlements in Hellenistic Bactria is, of course, a function of the available evidence.³⁶ And here it is useful to distinguish between the evidence available for the foundations attributed to Alexander and that for those attributed to the various Graeco-Bactrian dynasts. For the former, we have the lists in the various recensions of the Alexander Romance and its derivatives, as well as in Stephanos.³⁷ In addition, we have the information available in the major narrative accounts of Alexander’s life, namely Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Appian, Curtius Rufus, and Justin. For the latter, the surviving literary evidence is quite spotty.³⁸ Essentially, it is confined to observations and passages in a few authors—for example, Strabo, Pliny, and Justin—rather than occurring in a continuous narrative. Furthermore, when these authors do provide information about Bactria and adjacent regions, their focus is usually on the dynasts rather than on the settlements.

There is extensive numismatic evidence emanating from Hellenistic Bactria.³⁹ And this evidence is of the utmost importance and utility in reconstructing the history of Hellenistic Bactria and the adjoining regions. On the other hand, it is of only modest utility for the historian trying to give an account of the settlements there. In this connection we may note that it has been suggested that there were mints at, for example, AÏ KHANOUM and (possibly) ALEXANDREIA in Aria.

Archaeological excavation has demonstrated the existence of previously unknown Greek settlements at KAMPYR TEPE (Pandocheion?) in Uzbekistan and AÏ KHANOUM in Afghanistan.⁴⁰ Furthermore, ceramic evidence from Aï Khanoum provides evidence for contact between Bactria and the Mediterranean world throughout the Hellenistic period.⁴¹ We may note, for example, the presence of Dionysiac motifs on objects found in Bactria and Sogdiana.⁴² The archaeological evidence for contacts between Bactria and regions farther west is supported by other sources. Thus, we may recall the well-known request sent by the Mauryan king Bindusara (c. 298–272 B.C.) to the Seleucid king Antiochos I (281–261 B.C.) asking the latter to send him Greek wine, figs, and a Greek philosopher! (Athen. 14.652f–653a). And elsewhere I have mentioned the dispatch of elephants by a Bactrian satrap to Antiochos I in 274/3 B.C.⁴³

Greek inscriptions have been found at various places in Bactria, especially at AÏ KHANOUM.⁴⁴ The inscriptions are on stone, on vases, and, occasionally, on parchment. P. Bernard called attention to the relative paucity of inscriptions on stone in a city like AÏ KHANOUM, which had, nevertheless, yielded so much other evidence of its Greek heritage and culture. This paucity is particularly noticeable in comparison with other cities of the Seleucid Near East, such as Susa.⁴⁵ Bernard noted the practically total absence of public documents on stone recording, for example, letters between the king and the local authorities, or local administrative decisions. In particular, he called attention to the absence of dedications of honorific statues and decrees in honor of benefactors. Of course, as he noted, there is at least one major example of a public benefaction: the erection of the gymnasium at Aï Khanoum. But the general absence is noticeable. Setting aside the possibility that this was simply a function of chance, he suggested that the spirit of euergetism that one frequently encounters in other parts of the Seleucid empire was generally not present in Bactria—a function, perhaps, of the relatively small number of colonists in the region. Of course, it is also true, as Narain has observed, that the Greek settlers in Bactria were never able to establish a monolithic, dynastic state there as, for example, the Seleucids or the Ptolemies did in the regions under their control.⁴⁶ In any event, the general paucity of Greek inscriptions is puzzling, especially when it is contrasted with the number and high quality of the coins that were minted by the Greeks in Bactria. But whether this reflects the relatively small population of settlers, the nature of central governmental control (or absence, thereof), or chance is—as Bernard noted—impossible to say.

Finally, some Aramaic inscriptions have also been discovered in Bactria.⁴⁷

Regarding Chinese sources, D. D. Leslie and K. H. J. Gardiner observed: “Authenticity and dating of western classical sources are reasonably (but by no means finally) established, and the identification of most of the place-names accepted. As these sources deal with far away places they grow less and less reliable and by the time we get to China their knowledge is slight indeed. The same is true in reverse for the Chinese sources. Authenticity and dates have been queried, and the identifications of place-names in Central Asia and even more so in western Asia are still the subject of considerable debate . . . with no real consensus to be seen.”⁴⁸ F. Thierry also discussed the difficulties and challenges of translating, understanding, and interpreting the Chinese sources.⁴⁹ The difficulties are manifold. Thierry noted, for example: “Il est évident que des passages des textes chinois ont été corrumpus par les compilateurs et par les éditeurs, mais aussi par les auteurs eux-mêmes qui n’ont pas compris les documents originaux et qui les ont interprétés” (435). “La question des noms propres, des ethnonymes et des toponymes n’est pas le moindre des dangers des textes chinois” (437). “Enfin, dans certains cas, les auteurs chinois n’ont pas transcript, mais traduit le nom du pays ou du personnage” (439). “L’usage des idéogrammes chinois fondés sur une phonétique particulière, étrangère à celle des langues ouralo-altaïques ou indo-européennes, pour transcrire les mots xiongnu, yuezhi-kouchans sogdiens ou wusun, conduit à la nécessité d’une interpretation des suites de caractères formant des noms, des toponymes ou des ethnonymes; l’interpretation du traducteur ou du lecteur doit tenir compte de l’évolution de la langue chinoise, les caractères n’ayant généralement plus, de nos jours, la même prononciation que sous les Han. La confusion entre des caractères interchangeables ou graphiquement proches et l’usage de caractères différents mais de prononciation identiques ou similaire dans l’antiquité, mais aujourd’hui distincts, combinés avec des erreurs de copistes ou des erreurs d’éditeurs, peut conduire à des graphies aux sonorités très éloignées de tout nom connu ou probable” (442–43). For these reasons—and in the present stage of our knowledge—the Chinese sources should be used, with caution, primarily for illustrative rather than probative purposes.

1. In general for the literary sources see Cohen, Settlements in Europe 4–8. For the literary sources relating to the Middle Euphrates see Gaborit and Leriche in Geographica Historica 167–200; Gaborit, Géographie historique 167–98. For the sources relating to the Persian Gulf area see Teixidor in Materialien 289–94.

2. In general for the archaeological evidence for the Middle Euphrates see Gaborit, Géographie historique 299–379.

3. See, for example, L. Hannestad, Ikaros 2:1 84; Potts, Mesopotamian Civilization 296–300; P. Monsieur, R. Boucharlat, and E. Haerinck, IrAnt 46 (2011) 180.

4. See Cohen, Settlements in Syria 9–10 and literature cited there.

5. See Cohen, Settlements in Syria 8–9.

6. See especially www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron00.html; Van der Spek, Reallexikon s.v. “Seleukiden, Seleukidenreich” (bibliography, pp. 382–83).

7. Beiträge zur Rechtsgeschichte im Bereiche der keilschriftlichen Rechtsquellen (Oslo, 1931) 132.

8. On the “Graeco-Babyloniaca” texts see E. Sollberger, Iraq 24 (1962) 63–72; M. J. Geller, ZA 73 (1983) 114–20; id., ZA 87 (1997) 43–95; id. in Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte 377–83; J. A. Black and S. Sherwin-White, Iraq 46 (1984) 131–40; Oelsner in Materialen 239–44.

9. See especially Geller, ZA 87 (1997) 43–64; contra: A. Westenholz, ZA 97 (2007) 262– 313, especially 292–309. On the limited nature of Hellenization in Babylonia and the persistence of Babylonian culture, see, for example, Oelsner in Ideologies 183–96.

10. L. T. Doty, Mesopotamia 13–14 (1978) 91–98; Invernizzi in Ancient Archives 311–12.

11. See Doty, CA 151f., 308f.; M. W. Stolper, ZA 79 (1989) 80ff.; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 153f.; Oelsner in Archives 101–12.

12. Doty, CA 31ff.; G. J. P. McEwen, Texts from Hellenistic Babylonia in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1982); S. Sherwin-White, JNES 42 (1983) 265–70.

13. Doty, CA 194–96; S. Sherwin-White, JNES 42 (1983) 266.

14. Of course, other cuneiform documents provide historical information concerning, for example, Alexander, the successors of Alexander, and the Seleucid rulers. (See, for example, A. J. Sachs and D. J. Wiseman, Iraq 16 [1954] 202–11; Grayson, ABC pp. 24ff., pp. 115ff.; R. J. van der Spek, Ach. Hist. 13 [2003] 289–346; livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron00.html; J. Lendering, livius.org/di-dn/diaries/astronomical_diaries.html.) The information from these documents frequently allows a more precise dating of certain historical events. For example, the duration of Seleukos Nikator’s expedition to Europe and the date of his death in August/September 281 B.C. have been more accurately fixed as a result of the cuneiform evidence (Sachs and Wiseman, Iraq 16 [1954] 205–6; Sherwin-White, JNES 42 [1983] 266f.). For Seleukos’s final expedition, see also the cuneiform ABC 12 (and commentary by Grayson, ABC p. 27) = BCHP 9 (and commentary by R. J. van der Spek) = CM 33.

15. See A. J. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries; and livius.org/di-dn/diaries/astronomical_diaries.html.

16. See especially Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries 1:11–38; R. J. van der Spek, BiOr 50 (1993) 91–101; id., AfO 44/45 (1997/1998) 167–75; R. J. van der Spek and C.A Mandemakers, BiOr 60 (2003) 521; M. J. Geller, BSOAS 53 (1990) 1–7; J. Lendering, “Astronomical Diaries” in livius.org/di-dn/diaries/astronomical_diaries.html; Heller, Das Babylonien 81–87. See also P. Bernard, BCH 114 (1990) 513–41.

17. For a study of Babylonian prices see Slotsky, Bourse of Babylon; P. Vargyas, A History of Babylonian Prices in the First Millenium B.C., vol. 1, Prices of the Basic Commodities (Heidelberg, 2001); and the review of Van der Spek and Mandemakers, BiOr 60 (2003) 521–38 (bibliography, pp. 533–34).

18. For Babylonian chronicles see especially Grayson, ABC pp. 1–28. For further discussion and the secondary literature dealing with Babylonian chronicles see http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron_literature.html.

19. Grayson, ABC 1–13; I. Finkel and R. J. van der Spek, Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period ( = BCHP), in http://www.livius/Mesopotamia; and J. Lendering, http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron00.html. See also (earlier) S. Smith, BHT.

20. ABC p. 8.

21. In general see M. Rostovtzeff, YCS 3 (1932) 5–91; Aymard, Etudes 178–81 ( = REA 40 [1938] 5–9); Wallenfels, Uruk 1–5; id. in Archives 113–29 (URUK); Naster in Essays Thompson 215–19 (URUK); Invernizzi in Arabie orientale 27–30; id. in Ancient Archives 302–20; Oelsner in Archives 101–12 (BABYLON); Mollo in Sceaux d’ Orient 89–107 (SELEUKEIA on the Tigris).

22. Sealings of the kind found in Babylonia have thus far not been found in excavations in northern Mesopotamia; see Invernizzi in Ancient Archives 309. In 1932, Rostovtzeff observed that not one bulla had been found at DOURA EUROPOS (YCS 3 [1932] 17 and n. 14). He also noted that “no clay medallions with seal-impressions were found at Dura and … no one of the parchments and papyri found at Dura shows any traces of ever having been sealed.” Note, however, P. Dura 28, a parchment that was found in February 1933 that contains a Syriac deed of sale dated to 243 A.D.; it has a seal with an image that has been identified as that of Gordian III. In a personal communication Pierre Leriche, who has excavated at Doura Europos since 1986, informs me that during the Franco-Syrian excavations “on n’a pas trouvé d’empreinte de sceaux” there.

23. SIOS 2, referring to Rostovtzeff, YCS 3 (1932) 24.

24. YCS 3 (1932) 23f.

25. Rostovtzeff, YCS 3 (1932) 9, 18. Rostovtzeff, YCS 3 (1932) 9, 18.

26. See Rostovtzeff, YCS 3 (1932) 26–48 (catalogue) and 3–25, 49–91; McDowell, SIOS 36–126 (catalogue), 25–35, 127–208. For the sealings found at SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, see that entry, n. 12.

27. Rostovtzeff, YCS 3 (1932) 72–91.

28. YCS 3 (1932) 25; and A. Invernizzi, AAAS 21 (1971) 105f.

29. For bullae found at Seleukeia see SELEUKEIA on the Tigris and n. 12; on the terracotta figurines, see that entry, n. 25.

30. McDowell, SIOS 209–20; A. Invernizzi, AAAS 21 (1971) 105f.; and id. in Arabie orientale 28f.; for illustrations of bullae and sealings, see, for example, Rostovtzeff, YCS 3 (1932) pls. following p. 114; McDowell, SIOS, pls. at end; Invernizzi in Ach. Hist. 8:357.

31. Invernizzi in Ach. Hist. 8:353ff.

32. See SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, n. 12.

33. Cf. Rostovtzeff, YCS (1932) 90–91; and Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 149.

34. B. Haussoullier, Klio 9 (1909) 352–53 = SEG 7:39 = I. Estremo Oriente 107; see also Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 157.

35. For the absence or paucity of stone or marble in the Middle East and the challenge this presented to the Greeks wishing to inscribe something see Haussoullier, Klio 9 (1909) 11.

36. See, for example, Kritt, Bactria; Holt, Thundering Zeus 48–60, 67–86.

37. For the foundations attributed to Alexander one should consult in particular Fraser, Cities; and Billerbeck’s edition of Stephanos, as well as Droysen, Hist. 2:748–54; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:291–301; Tarn, Alexander 2:232–59; and below, pp. 35–38, 339.

38. See, for example, Holt, Thundering Zeus 55–60.

39. See, for example, Bopearachchi, SNG ANS 9; id., Monnaies gréco-bactriennes; id. in De l’Indus 81–108, 129–68; and id. in Greek Archaeology 109–26; Kritt, Bactria; Holt, Thundering Zeus 67–125; Cribb in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 207–26; and bibliographies in each of these.

40. For archaeology in central Asia see, for example, Allchin and Hammond, Archaeology of Afghanistan; Ball and Gardin, Gazetteer Afghanistan; V. A. Gaibov, G. A. Koshelenko, G. V. Trebeleva, Parthica 12 (2010) 107–16; Mairs, Hellenistic Far East (central Asia and India).

41. See, for example, Gardin in De l’Indus aux Balkans 447–60; id. in Akten XIII Kong. 187–93. See also Ball and Gardin, Gazetteer Afghanistan passim; Gardin, Prospections 3: passim; and B. Brentjes, Das Altertum 27 (1981) 133–46.

42. See, for example, Abdullaev in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 227–57.

43. P. 20.

44. For collections of inscriptions see, for example, Canali De Rossi, I. Estremo Oriente; Merkelbach and Stauber, Steinepigramme; Coloru, Da Alessandro 287–93; Merkelbach and Stauber, Euphrat; and Rougement, IGIAC. In general, see the useful overview with bibliographic references by Bernard in Greek Archaeology 75–108; see also Rapin in De l’Indus aux Balkans 375–76; and Rougement in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 127–36.

45. In Greek Archaeology 92–93.

46. Narain, CAH² 8:415.

47. See, for example, C. Rapin, BCH (1983) 347, no. 28.

48. T’oung Pao 68.4–5 (1982) 264.

49. In Afghanistan ancien carrefour 421–539, especially 421–46. For similar concerns, see also Fraser, Cities 232–34.