Читать книгу The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India - Getzel M. Cohen - Страница 12
ОглавлениеAn Overview
ARMENIA
Media Atropatene and Armenia were located on the northwest border of the Iranian plateau. Both regions were under Achaemenid control and, hence, will have nominally passed to Alexander after the Macedonian king conquered the Persian Empire.1 Nevertheless, there is no firm evidence that Alexander founded any settlement in Armenia. Although Appian claimed (Syr. 55) that Armenia was one of the territories under Seleukos I Nikator’s rule, there is no general agreement as to its status.2 In any event, the only settlement that can be attributed to a Seleucid monarch with any degree of probability is EPIPHANEIA on the Tigris.
MESOPOTAMIA AND THE GULF REGION
In many respects Hellenistic northern Mesopotamia represents an extension of Syria. Just as Macedonian regional names were transferred to Syria, so an area of northern Mesopotamia was renamed “Mygdonia,” a reflection of the strong Macedonian presence in the region (Strabo 16.1.23).3 By contrast, there is no area in southern Mesopotamia or in regions beyond the Tigris that was given a Macedonian regional name.4 Furthermore, the minting of quasi-municipal coinage, which is found under Antiochos IV Epiphanes and later in southeastern Anatolia, northern Syria, and Phoenicia, is also found in northern Mesopotamia (at EDESSA/ANTIOCH on the Kallirhoe and ANTIOCH in Mygdonia).5 This represents the farthest point east for the minting of these types of coin.6 The contrast with southern Mesopotamia and regions farther east is noteworthy. There certainly were Seleucid foundations in these areas. Furthermore, we do find evidence for royal Seleucid mints at various cities (e.g., SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, SELEUKEIA on the Eulaios, Persepolis, EKBATANA, and HEKATOMPYLOS). Nevertheless, there is no extant evidence that any town or settlement there minted any kind of local bronze coinage. As O. Mørkholm observed, this coin type “did not penetrate into the East.”7
In 1927 M. Rostovtzeff observed that “the centre of the Seleucid Empire was made up of the former kingdoms of Babylonia and Assyria” and that the intense colonization of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Parapotamia was “intended to transform the kernel of their kingdom into a new Macedonia.”8 In the latter part of the twentieth century the centrality of Mesopotamia for the Seleucids was reemphasized by, among others, Susan Sherwin-White and Amélie Kuhrt as well as Pierre Briant.9 They focused on the Middle Eastern context. In the introduction to their book, From Samarkhand to Sardis, Sherwin-White and Kuhrt commented: “The title of this book expresses our firmly held view that the Seleucid empire was an eastern empire centered in the middle east, particularly the ‘Fertile Crescent’, i.e., Mesopotamia and north Syria and western Iran. These areas formed . . . the core of the Seleucid kings’ huge realm. From this perspective, Asia Minor in the west and Central Asia in the east constituted the outer frontiers of the kingdom, as had been the case for the Achaemenids.”10 And Briant pointed out: “Seleucus chose to set up the centre of his power in Babylonia, thus clearly declaring . . . that his priorities were not located on the Mediterranean. This represents an indisputable continuity with the Achaemenid period.”11 While there has been much discussion about Sherwin-White and Kuhrt’s book and its conclusions, the fundamental thesis about the importance and centrality of the area of the Fertile Crescent for the Seleucid realm is especially noteworthy.12 And in this context, Mesopotamia—whether as a “new Macedonia” or as the heart of a new “eastern empire”—will have taken pride of place.
Strabo described northern Mesopotamia as “quite fertile” (16.1.23), but it was southern Mesopotamia—that is, Babylonia—that, according to Strabo, was a particularly rich agricultural area and quite populous (16.1.14, 15.3.5). Trade was also a significant revenue source for Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia, after all, was a crossroads between the Mediterranean and the Iranian plateau as well as the Persian Gulf. Not surprisingly, important transit routes—both east-west and north-south—crisscrossed the region.13 But here a caveat is in order: we have relatively little direct literary information about travel routes in and through Mesopotamia during the Hellenistic period. If the direct literary evidence for Hellenistic routes in this region is sparse, we can look backward and forward to try to get some idea of the situation as it existed both before and after. Of course in doing so we must remain aware that over time—because of, for example, a changed geopolitical environment or new trading patterns—the routes themselves could change. Let us first review briefly the evidence for trade routes to and through Mesopotamia in the periods before and after the Hellenistic age.
There is cuneiform evidence from the second and first millennia B.C. for trade routes in Mesopotamia.14 In this connection, A. L. Oppenheim has suggested that the embarkation point for Euphrates river traffic originating on the Mediterranean coast was Emar in the second millennium and possibly Carchemish during the first.15 In the neo-Assyrian period a road ran west from Nisibis to Gozan and Karrhai and then on to Arpad in north Syria. Another road ran south from Nisibis along the Khabour River and joined the road along the Euphrates to Babylon.16 We also have some information about the Persian Royal Road system. The exact route of the great Persian Royal Road from Sardis to Susa is still unclear. Depending on whether one adheres to the “northern route” or the “southern route” hypothesis, the road will apparently have crossed the Euphrates either at SAMOSATA or (the later) SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma.17 In addition to the great road, there were, of course, other routes. For example, an Aramaic document provides information about an itinerary that encompassed travel from Arbela to Damascus.18
Strabo, who lived in the latter part of the first century B.C./early first century A.D., described a route from Syria to Seleukeia and Babylon that crossed the Euphrates near ANTHEMOUSIAS.19 From the Parthian period we get information for transit routes from Isidore of Charax, who apparently lived in the early first century A.D. He described a caravan route that ran southward from Zeugma to ANTHEMOUSIAS, ALAGMA, and ICHNAI and then down along the Euphrates to Seleukeia on the Tigris.20 In the later Roman period we find evidence in, among others, Ptolemy, the Tabula Peutingeriana, and the Geographer of Ravenna.21 The sum total of these various sources indicates the existence of an extensive network of land and riverine (in particular, the Euphrates) routes throughout Mesopotamia both before and after and presumably, therefore, during the Hellenistic period.
In the fifth and fourth centuries the major crossing of the Euphrates for routes originating on the Mediterranean coast was apparently at Thapsakos (the precise location of which is still a matter of discussion).22 From there caravan routes proceeded eastward across Mesopotamia to the Tigris or southward on (or along) the Euphrates to Babylon. Herodotus (1.185, 194), for example, mentions the transport of jars of Phoenician wine—among other products—down the Euphrates (though he does not specifically mention Thapsakos).23
In 437/6 B.C. the Athenian Diotimos sailed to Cilicia on his way to Susa. From Cilicia he apparently traveled overland to the Euphrates, sailed downstream on the Euphrates, and then proceeded on to Susa.24 Thapsakos is where Cyrus the Younger and the 10,000 Greek mercenaries crossed the Euphrates in 401 B.C. on their way to Babylon.25 In 396, when Conon wanted to have an audience with the Persian king, he traveled overland from Cilicia to Thapsakos and then proceeded by boat down the Euphrates to Babylon (Diod. 14.81.4). When Alexander was pursuing Darius he crossed the Euphrates at Thapsakos and then continued eastward to Arbela (Arr. 3.7.1). And in 324 B.C., when the Macedonian king wanted boats brought from Phoenicia to Babylon, he had them broken up and transported overland to Thapsakos. They were then reassembled and sailed downstream on the Euphrates to Babylon (Arr. 7.19.3). In the Hellenistic period, SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma emerged as an important city and apparently supplanted Thapsakos as the primary crossing.26 A useful source in this regard is Polybius, who records Antiochos III’s pursuit of Molon in 221 B.C. The king crossed the Euphrates—apparently at Seleukeia—and then marched eastward to ANTIOCH in Mygdonia (Polyb. 5.43, 51). Coming down to the first century B.C., we also know that in his pursuit of the Parthians, Crassus crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma (Plutarch Crassus 19).
If there is little direct literary evidence for Hellenistic roads, we can deduce the existence of certain routes by plotting out the locations of the various settlements. For example, a glance at a map confirms the existence of a string of settlements—EDESSA/ANTIOCH on the Kallirhoe, KARRHAI, NIKEPHORION, and ANTIOCH in Mygdonia—running eastward toward the Tigris from SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma. On both banks of the Euphrates (that is, in both Syria and Mesopotamia) we find a series of settlements beginning with SAMOSATA in the north and ending with SELEUKEIA on the Tigris. And various settlements east and south of Seleukeia connected it with the overland routes eastward to Susiana and beyond or southward, to the Persian Gulf.
While we distinguish between Syria and Mesopotamia, it is useful to bear in mind that in antiquity “Syria” could be used in a larger sense to designate an area that included regions east of the Euphrates. Strabo (16.1.1–2), for example, mentioned that historically the name “Syria” included Babylonia. And Stephanos (s.v.) said that EDESSA and ANTHEMOUSIAS—which were, of course, located in Mesopotamia—were located in Syria.27
Seleucid policy in (northern) Mesopotamia was quite similar to that encountered in Syria—namely, fill the region with Graeco-Macedonian settlers and settlements. As Rostovtzeff observed, “Syria and Mesopotamia were to be made a second Macedonia, but a Macedonia of cities and fortresses, not of tribes and villages.”28 And like Syria, Mesopotamia was filled by Seleukos I with settlements that in most cases took their names from Greece and Macedonia (App. Syr. 57).
We may briefly review the history of Mesopotamia after the death of Alexander. Here it is useful to bear in mind that Mesopotamia, “the land between the rivers,” was really two extensive regions: the northern part, ancient Assyria; and the southern, Babylonia.29
After the conference at Triparadeisos in Syria in 321 B.C., Amphimachos received Mesopotamia; and Seleukos, Babylonia.30 The former was an ally of Eumenes of Cardia.31 The death of Eumenes after his defeat at the battle of Gabiene at the hands of Antigonos Monophthalmos in 316/5 B.C. significantly changed the geopolitical situation in Mesopotamia.32 After the battle, Antigonos seized Babylonia from Seleukos; he then appointed Peithon son of Agenor satrap of Babylonia and possibly Mesopotamia as well.33 Northern Mesopotamia remained under the hegemony of Antigonos, but Babylonia returned to Seleukos after he recaptured it in a daring raid in 312 B.C.34 Antigonos continued to fight in Babylonia until c. 308, when, defeated by Seleukos, he retired from the region and left it under the control of the latter.35 From this point until the battle of Ipsos the region was apparently divided: although the boundary between the two cannot be precisely determined, it would appear that Antigonos controlled northern Mesopotamia, and Seleukos, the southern part.36
It is worth noting that despite the fact that Antigonos controlled northern Mesopotamia beginning in 316 B.C., he maintained his primary residence at Kelainai in Phrygia for many years, and that when he did found a major new settlement—ANTIGONEIA—he chose to locate it in northern Syria.37 Furthermore, there is no unequivocal evidence he founded any settlements in Mesopotamia. The only possible claimant—KARRHAI—is disputed. Some scholars attribute it to Antigonos; others, to Alexander. All the other settlements founded by Antigonos—with the possible exception of EUROPOS Rhagai in Media (also a doubtful attribution)—were located either in northern Syria or in Asia Minor.38 The contrast with Seleukos could not be stronger.
Before the battle of Ipsos in 301 B.C., Seleukos’s empire was centered in Babylonia. Up to this time, Babylonia, in fact, was the westernmost point of his kingdom. After Ipsos, Seleukos came into control of, among other areas, northern Mesopotamia and northern Syria. Now, for the first time, he had access to the Mediterranean. As is well known, he immediately embarked on a major settlement founding program in northern Syria.39 But, as I have mentioned, he also focused a great deal of attention on northern Mesopotamia as well as other regions farther east, a point emphasized by Appian (Syr. 57). At the same time that he was filling northern Syria with settlements, he was doing the same in northern Mesopotamia. Whereas northern Syria was sparsely populated and little developed in the years before Alexander, Babylonia was home to an ancient and highly developed urban civilization. It will not be surprising, therefore, that the major Hellenistic settlement of the region—SELEUKEIA on the Tigris—was founded at the expense of a nearby city, BABYLON . The importance of Babylonia in the Hellenistic period becomes clear if we consider the role its chief city played under Alexander the Great and, later, under the Seleucids.40 It was at Babylon that Alexander spent his last year(s), organizing his realm and planning future enterprises.41 Of course, it is also not insignificant that he died there. The centrality of Babylonia for control of the Near East continued under Seleukos I. He, of course, began his political career as the governor of Babylonia in 321 B.C., lost control of it to Antigonos in 315, and then regained control in 312.42 Babylon and Babylonia, which had remained loyal to Seleukos during his struggles with Antigonos, would now serve as the core of his expanding empire.43
Babylon was a key historical and commercial focal point of the ancient Near East. It was located at the place where the Tigris and Euphrates are closest together and where one of the routes connecting Mesopotamia with the Iranian plateau opens up.44 It will not be surprising, therefore, that over time a number of cities—for example, BABYLON, SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, KTESIPHON, Vologesias, Veh-Ardashir, and finally, Baghdad—were established in this general area. Seleukos made SELEUKEIA on the Tigris—ultimately the successor city of Babylon—the eastern capital of his kingdom. Cuneiform documents of the Seleucid period describe Seleukeia as the “city of kingship,” a clear indication of its importance. Seleukeia on the Tigris was the great terminus for trade with central Asia, India, and Arabia. Its importance as a commercial center is also to be seen in the very active mint that was established there. The Indian trade brought goods to Seleukeia via both the Persian Gulf and a land route through the Iranian plateau. Of course, these roads also provided the means for military communication between parts of the empire. The importance of Babylonia as a vital trade link between east and west can be seen, for example, in the cuneiform Astronomical Diaries (1:345, no. 273B Rev. 31), which records how the Babylonian satrap served as an intermediary for elephants sent from Bactria to the king fighting in Syria in 274/3 B.C.45 G. Le Rider called attention to the increase in Seleukeian bronzes at Susa during the reign of Antiochos III and suggested that this reflected the new commercial realities created by the Seleucid king’s presence in these regions in 205–204 B.C.46 He correctly attributed the increase in Seleukeian bronzes at Susa to the presence of Seleukeian merchants there and saw this as a reflection of Susa’s role as an important market for goods coming from Arabia and India.
Moving northward from Seleukeia, a major trade route ran north on and along the Euphrates to SELEUKEIA/Zeugma and thence overland across Syria to the Mediterranean coast. I have already mentioned that settlements such as those at NIKEPHORION (Raqqah), ANTHEMOUSIAS, and APAMEIA on the east bank and DOURA EUROPOS, AMPHIPOLIS [?], JEBEL KHALID, and SELEUKEIA/Zeugma on the west bank protected these roads and the crossings to Syria.47 Finally, the fact that a number of Seleukeians are found taking part in agonistic contests at various places in the Greek world suggests that they (or others) also engaged in commercial enterprises with the Mediterranean and Aegean worlds.48
I would also mention the Persian Gulf. As is well known, in 325 B.C. Alexander ordered Nearchos to sail from the mouth of the Indus River along the coast of Gedrosia to the Persian Gulf (Arr. 7.20.9–10). From Arrian and Strabo we learn that in 324/3 B.C. Alexander sent out three small expeditions to explore the Arabian coast and that he planned to colonize the coastal region and the offshore islands because he thought the area would become as prosperous as Phoenicia.49 And as is also well known, at the end of his great anabasis to the eastern regions of his empire, Antiochos III visited the Persian Gulf area, and in particular the Arabian city of Gerrha.50 There was apparently a third expedition in the Gulf, this one under Antiochos IV Epiphanes (Pliny NH 6.147, 152).51
The interest of Alexander and the Seleucids in the Persian Gulf is reflected by, among other things, the presence of a number of settlements in and around the Gulf: the extant evidence indicates the presence of settlements at the head of the Gulf (ALEXANDREIA/ANTIOCH/Spasinou Charax), on the Iranian shore (ANTIOCH in Persis), and in the Gulf itself (the island of IKAROS). The exact location of SELEUKEIA on the Erythraean Sea is still not known.
Pliny provides additional information. Thus, he mentions two small ports or stations on the Iranian coast of the Persian Gulf—PORTUS MACEDONUM and the ALTARS OF ALEXAND ER (NH 6.110).52 Pliny also mentions ARETHOUSA, LARISA, and CHALKIS in Arabia. In this connection, J.-F. Salles has suggested that the Seleucids maintained a permanent fleet in the Persian Gulf and that settlements/garrisons or ports were established on the coast at various points to service the vessels. Arethousa, Larisa, and Chalkis would fall in this category. But, as Salles admitted, the suggestion will probably remain unverifiable.53 There is, however, an additional problem regarding these three settlements: it is not clear whether Pliny erred in placing them in Arabia rather than in Syria.54
If there is no firm evidence for Greek settlement on the Arabian coast, there are (scattered) material remains from a number of sites in eastern Arabia that provide some evidence for ties between the region and the rest of the Greek world: for example, at Mleiha on the Omani peninsula a few Rhodian stamped amphora handles (second century B.C.) have been found.55 At BAHRAIN, archaeologists have found evidence for Greeks and Babylonians. Among other things, they have found four Greek inscriptions as well as a potsherd and a gourd with Greek writing on each. The Greek inscriptions include a dedication of a temple made on behalf of King Hyspaosines and Queen Thalassia by the “strategos of Tylos and the Islands” to the Dioskouroi Saviors and a fragmentary tombstone inscription probably dating to the second half of the second century B.C. that honors a kybernetes with the Babylonian name Abidistaras. Another fragmentary funerary inscription that is dated by the Seleucid era to 118/7 B.C. honors someone with the Semitic name Auidisaros who is identified as an “Alexandreian.” A funerary jar (?) that contains an Aramaic inscription mentioning the Babylonian god Nabu and that may date to the fourth or third century B.C. has also been found.56 The most important commercial center in eastern Arabia during the Hellenistic period was Gerrha.57 In the Aegean basin there is epigraphic evidence for a merchant from Gerrha at Delos in the mid-second century B.C.58 At Thaj (the probable site of Gerrha) sherds of Greek black-glazed pottery and a stamped amphora handle have been found.59 A significant number of coins—mainly dating to the latter half of the third century B.C.—have been found (practically all picked up as surface finds) in northeastern Arabia. Many have the legend ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ and south Arabian letters on the reverse. Some of these were modeled after Alexander coinage—that is, with the head of Herakles on the obverse, Zeus seated in his throne on the reverse. Others have on the obverse diademed portraits that resemble various Seleucid rulers: for example, Seleukos I, Antiochos I, or Antiochos III.60 The interpretation of these coins in the larger historical context has been the subject of an interesting discussion. Mørkholm noted that the coins were minted on the Attic standard and suggested this indicates that trade from eastern Arabia was primarily oriented toward the Seleucid empire. Furthermore, he suggested that the fact these “Arabian Alexanders” have been found on Failaka, at Susa (SELEUKEIA on the Eulaios), in northern Syria, and at Gordion in central Asia Minor demonstrates the route(s) on which the trade was being conducted. M. Huth and D. T. Potts disagreed. They suggested that the appearance of these coins in Syria and Phrygia simply reflects the movement of Antiochos III’s troops into Asia Minor after his expedition to the Persian Gulf area.61
ASSYRIA AND APOLLONIATIS
Apolloniatis (formerly called Sittakene), which Strabo describes as “extensive and fertile,”62 introduces a unique problem for the historian interested in the Hellenistic settlements in the Near East: the need to distinguish the Graeco-Macedonian settlements founded by Alexander and his successors from the colonies of Greeks and others that owed their origins to the population transfers carried out by the Persians, particularly in the early part of the fifth century B.C. At that time—especially under Darius and Xerxes—population transfer as a punitive measure was a standard policy of the Achaemenids.63 Essentially, this policy resulted in Greeks and others being exiled to the interior and especially to the far eastern and southern regions of the Persian Empire.64 It brought Barcaeans from Libya to Bactria (Hdt. 4.204), Paeonians to Asia (Hdt. 5.12), Milesians and others to the Red Sea basin (Hdt. 3.39, 6.20; Ctesias Persika 688 F14[43]) and Bactria (Branchidae: table of contents to Diodorus book 17 and Curt. Rufus 7.5.28–35, on which see Altheim-Stiehl, Geschichte 158–59; P. Bernard, Aï Khanoum 4:123–25), Eretrians from Euboea to Susiana (Hdt. 6.119; Pal. Anth. 7:259), Media (Philostratus Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.24.2 = Pal. Anth. 7:256), and/or Gordyene in northern Mesopotamia (Strabo 16.1.25), Boeotians to Sittakene/Apolloniatis (Diod. 17.110.4–5), and Carians to the right bank of the Tigris, opposite Sittakene (Arr. 3.8.5; see also Diod. 17.110.3–4 and 19.12.1), as well as to Bactria (Strabo 11.11.4).65
As a result, when Alexander and his successors came to these various regions in and adjacent to Mesopotamia as well as those farther east, they encountered the descendants of those Greeks who had been sent there by the Persians two hundred or more years before and who still remained identifiably Greek. Thus, in describing some of the Boeotians in Sittakene, Diodorus noted: “There dwells here down to our time [i.e., latter half of the first century B.C.] a settlement of Boeotians who were moved in the time of Xerxes’ campaign, but still have not forgotten their ancestral customs. They are bilingual and speak like the natives in one language, while in the other they preserve most of the Greek vocabulary, and they maintain some Greek customs” (17.110.4–5, trans. Welles).
This raises an interesting problem for the historian of the Hellenistic Near East: there are a number of settlements in Mesopotamia and Apolloniatis that are described by Isidore of Charax in the first century A.D. as poleis hellenides.66 How many of these were settlements of Greeks that were established during the Hellenistic age, and how many were vestiges of the Achaemenid policy of population transfer? In some cases the paucity of the evidence does not allow us decide. As a result, in the absence of other extant information about these towns, we must consider the possibility that in some cases their “Hellenic character” reflected the forced settlement of Greeks by the Persians in the fifth century rather than the settlement practice of either Alexander or the Seleucids.
We actually find relatively more settlements in this region—for example, ANTIOCH, APOLLONIA, ARTEMITA, and CHALA—than in the most areas of the Iranian plateau on the other side of the Zagros Mountains. None were apparently of any great importance.67
THE IRANIAN PLATEAU
In any discussion of the Hellenistic Near East, it immediately becomes clear that once we cross the Tigris and move east the environment begins to change in a number of ways. I have already mentioned that the minting of quasi-municipal coinage, which is found in southeastern Anatolia, northern Syria, and Phoenicia, as well as northern Mesopotamia, is not attested in southern Mesopotamia, Iran, or any other point farther east. The territory east of the Tigris that Seleukos Nikator initially controlled was immense. The farther east beyond the Tigris that the Greeks and Macedonians went the fewer there were of them and the more difficult it was for them to come over from the Greek mainland. Furthermore, the Iranian plateau and central Asia encompass a vast area.68 One thinks, incidentally, of the colonial French in the great stretches of what they called the “pays d’en haut” of North America during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—that is, the land upriver from Montreal or, roughly, western Ontario, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.69 French explorers, hunters, and traders roamed over this region. The names of numerous towns and cities in this regions (and beyond) recall their presence: for example, Presque Isle (Pennsylvania), Belpre—originally, Belle Prairie—(Ohio), Detroit and Sault Ste. Marie (Michigan), Terre Haute, French Lick, and Versailles (Indiana), La Salle (Illinois), Eau Claire and Marquette (Wisconsin), and so on. But in most cases the toponyms are all that remain as witnesses of the French presence. Why is this? There are, of course, many reasons and numerous explanations. Most of the French operating in these regions were traders and hunters, not settlers. Furthermore, the French colonial officials never followed a cohesive policy to encourage settlement of this area. Their apparent avoidance of a clearly articulated settlement policy may also reflect, among other things, a harsh demographic fact: there were not enough Frenchmen available (or willing) to settle this vast area.
Like the French in North America, there were not enough Graeco-Macedonian settlers to fill the vast stretches of the Iranian plateau and central Asia.70 A glance at a map of the Iranian plateau makes clear both the extraordinarily large area under consideration and the relative paucity of Hellenistic settlements in most parts of it. The contrast with Syria is quite striking. Furthermore, climate and geography will have made this region much less attractive to Greeks and Macedonians than, for example, Syria and Phoenicia. By comparison with the moderate Mediterranean climate of Syria and Phoenicia, the continental climate of the Iranian plateau and central Asia is harsh: hot, dry summers and cold winters.71 Furthermore, the Iranian plateau is mostly rocky and dry; it has two salt deserts in the center and is surrounded by mountain ranges that extend well into much of central Asia.72
In addition, we should bear in mind the geopolitical context.73 In recent years scholars have correctly reemphasized the importance of Mesopotamia and especially Babylonia in the Seleucid realm.74 Nevertheless, we should not forget that in 300 B.C., immediately after his conquest of northern Syria, Seleukos made the conscious decision to establish four major settlements there, including the foundation that was destined to become the capital of his kingdom, ANTIOCH near Daphne. Despite the establishment of Antiochos I in SELEUKEIA on the Tigris as coruler, the net effect of that decision focused Seleucid attention westward and undoubtedly weakened Seleucid authority beyond the Tigris, namely, in Iran and especially points farther east. One thinks of Edmund Burke’s observation in his “Speech on Conciliation with America,” which he delivered on March 22, 1775: “The last cause of this disobedient spirit in the [American] colonies is hardly less powerful than the rest, as it is not merely moral, but laid deep in the natural constitution of things. Three thousand miles of ocean lie between you and them. No contrivance can prevent the effect of this distance in weakening government. Seas roll, and months pass, between the order and the execution; and the want of a speedy explanation of a single point is enough to defeat a whole system. . . . In large bodies, the circulation of power must be less vigorous at the extremities. Nature has said it. The Turk cannot govern Egypt, and Arabia, and Kurdistan, as he governs Thrace; nor has he the same dominion in Crimea and Algiers which he has at Brusa and Smyrna. . . . The Sultan gets such obedience as he can. He governs with a loose rein, that he may govern at all; and the whole of the force and vigour of his authority in his centre is derived from a prudent relaxation in all his borders. Spain, in her provinces, is perhaps not so well obeyed as you are in yours. This is the immutable condition, the eternal law, of extensive and detached empire.” What affected the Turkish sultan doubtless affected the Seleucid kings as well.
At least two other factors increased the difficulty of controlling the regions beyond the Tigris in the course of the third century B.C.: the restlessness and unhappiness of the Greeks in central Asia (on which, see below), the continuing warfare between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies—the so-called Syrian Wars—and the intermittent outbreaks of internecine warfare such as the “War of the Brothers.” Not surprisingly, various Macedonian generals in these eastern areas took advantage of these preoccupations in order to separate themselves and their fiefdoms from central Seleucid control (Strabo 11.11.1, 15.1.3).75 It was only at the very end of the third century that a Seleucid monarch—Antiochos III—attempted to reassert royal control over these areas. Antiochos was successful, if only briefly. Soon after his defeat at Magnesia in 190 B.C. the Seleucids permanently lost control of large areas in the east—Bactria and the adjacent regions. Most of Iran remained under Seleucid hegemony during the first half of the second century B.C. In Media, it will be recalled, Antiochos IV Epiphanes refounded Ekbatana as an EPIPHANEIA. Nevertheless, the combined pressure of a native uprising under Epiphanes in Elymais followed by Parthian incursions in Elymais and Media further weakened the royal presence there until, finally, in 129 B.C. the Seleucids permanently lost control of all their territory beyond the Euphrates.
E. Bickerman has correctly pointed out that we probably know less about the native Iranians under Hellenistic rule than we do about the indigenous inhabitants of, for example, Babylonia, Syria, or Phoenicia: contemporary records were written on perishable materials (e.g., leather, wood, and papyrus); furthermore, very few Greek inscriptions have thus far been found.76 There are a number of monuments, bas-reliefs, and statues that recall the Graeco-Macedonian presence in these areas, but a memorial or monument does not necessarily indicate the existence of a Hellenistic settlement. The reception of the Hellenistic Greeks in the region of the Iranian plateau also presents a rather well-defined contrast with areas farther to the west. Thus, E. Yarshater has observed that the impact of the Greeks “produced in Iran a result differing from that in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt. Hellenism in these countries had a full flowering and spread a new form of culture; in Iran it remained only an influence—albeit a strong one. In other words, Iran did not lose its basic identity and did not abandon its own cultural traits, embodied above all in its religion. It soon attempted to pull away from the West. . . . Hellenism, which had been superimposed on latent national tendencies, was cast off in a movement initiated by the Parthians and carried out by the Sasanians.”77 This is not to deny any Greek influence in the region. Quite the contrary. Thus, when the Parthians came to power they struck coins patterned after Seleucid models, complete with Greek legends. Furthermore, it useful to bear in mind that the Seleucid dynasty itself was half-Iranian in origin: Seleukos I Nikator had married Apama, the daughter of the Bactrian Spitamenes (Arr. 7.4.6). Thus, their son, Antiochos I Soter, was half-Iranian. But all these examples reflect the upper and ruling classes. The extent of the influence on the general population remains doubtful. In this context we may recall W. W. Tarn’s observation that the Greek and Macedonian settlers generally remained in the settlements and did not go out into the countryside.78
I have already alluded to some of the factors that will have discouraged heavy colonization on the Iranian plateau. Nevertheless, there was a relatively strong concentration of Hellenistic settlements in northwestern (and, to a lesser degree, northeastern) Iran.79 This is especially noticeable in Media and the adjacent regions. The importance of Media to the Seleucids was noted by Strabo, who called them “the kings of Syria and Media” (11.9.2). Polybius observed that Media was “the most notable principality in Asia, both in the extent of its territory and the number and excellence of the men and also of the horses it produces. It supplies nearly the whole of Asia with these animals, the royal stud farms being entrusted to the Medes owing to the excellence of the pastures” (10.27.1–2, trans. Paton).80 Not surprisingly, the region—both the frontier and the interior—was heavily settled by Alexander and his successors. Polybius observed (10.27.3–4) that Alexander the Great established a ring of “Greek cities”—except EKBATANA—around Media to protect it from neighboring barbarians (presumably he placed Ekbatana in a separate category because, as he notes [10.27.5], it had been the royal residence of the Medes). Interestingly, the mint mark of coins produced at Ekbatana was the forepart of a feeding horse.81 F. W. Walbank suggested that these settlements were needed in order to secure what would become “the central province of the Seleucid realm.”82 Strabo said (11.9.1) that Herakleia and APAMEIA were located in the vicinity of RHAGAI. Strabo also said (11.13.6) that among the Greek cities in Media that were founded by the Macedonians were LAODIKEIA, APAMEIA, the [city] near RHAGAI (κα? ? πρ?ς ‘Pάγαις), and Rhagai itself. We do not know the exact location of many of these settlements. Nevertheless, it is likely that many would have been located along the route from Syria to China.83
Hyrcania was located around the southeast corner of the Caspian Sea. Although no Hellenistic settlement is definitely attested for this region, Polybius does describe Sirynx (10.31.6) as the capital or royal residence (βασ?λειον) of Hyrcania. He also says that some Greeks lived there (10.31.11). An inscription found in the region of ancient Hyrcania records a sacral manumission that dates to the third century B.C.84 The document provides evidence for a cult and sanctuary of Sarapis to whom the manumitted slave was dedicated on behalf of King Antiochos I Soter and his wife, Stratonike. Thus, the inscription indicates the presence of Greeks at a relatively early period in this area. Whether it also reflects the presence of a Greek colony, as Sherwin-White suggested, is less certain.85
Farther east—that is, in Parthia—there is evidence for at least five settlements—SOTEIRA, KALLIOPE, CHARIS, HEKATOMPYLOS, and ACHAIA—that Appian says were founded by Seleukos I Nikator (Syr. 57).86 Aside from some information concerning Hekatompylos, little is known about any of the other foundations. In any event, the rise of the Arsacids and their assumption of control of Parthia (and Hyrcania) in the period after the mid-third century B.C. effectively ended the Seleucid presence there.87
In the southwest, in Susiana, Elymais, and Persis there were also a number of Seleucid settlements. In fact, one of the most important Hellenistic (re)foundations of the Iranian plateau was SELEUKEIA on the Eulaios, the former Susa.88 Strabo (15.3.11) emphasized the extensive cultivation of grain in that region. He asserted that “Susis abounds so exceedingly in grain that both barley and wheat regularly produce one hundredfold, and sometimes even two hundred” (trans. Jones). Potts has expressd great skepticism regarding these claims. He noted that Strabo’s “account of the phenomenal yields achieved for wheat and barley crops strains all credulity.” He also doubted Strabo’s claim that it was the Macedonians who introduced viticulture there, since, as he pointed out, it is known that grapes were cultivated and wine manufactured in neighboring southern Mesoptamia from early times.89 On the other hand, Diodorus (19.13.6) mentions that when they were in Susiana in c. 318/7 B.C. Eumenes and his men consumed rice, sesame, and dates, which grew in abundance in the region. Strabo also refers to the cultivation of rice there (16.1.18), but Potts cautioned that it is difficult to know whether Strabo was referring to conditions in his day (first century B.C./first century A.D.) or the late fourth century B.C., when Eumenes would have been marching through. Strabo also mentioned that liquid asphalt or naphtha was found in Susis (16.1.15). Finally, Le Rider has pointed out that the horse or the head of a horse on various bronze coins from Susa suggests that horse breeding was carried on there.90 Susa was the site of a royal mint and, particularly after Antiochos III’s eastern campaign, a major commercial center for trade with the Persian Gulf region.
I have discussed above the settlements along the Iranian littoral of the Persian Gulf.91
BACTRIA
It has long been noted that with the exception of ALEXANDROPOLIS in Thrace, ALEXANDREIA near Egypt, the Macedonian settlement at SAMAREIA, and ALEXANDREIA/Spasinou Charax, all the settlements that can arguably be claimed to have been founded by Alexander the Great were located in central Asia—that is, well east of the Tigris.92 ALEXANDROPOLIS in Thrace was, of course, a foundation of Alexander’s youth, established after a rebellion in the region. The military settlement at SAMAREIA was founded in response to a rebellion by the Samaritans. The other two settlements—both of which were called Alexandreia—were apparently established primarily for commercial and political rather than strategic or security reasons. ALEXANDREIA/Spasinou Charax at the head of the Persian Gulf provided an outlet for maritime trade with India. Similarly, ALEXANDREIA near Egypt provided access to the Mediterranean and served as a commercial transit point for goods traveling up and down the Nile from and to the Red Sea coast.
In Bactria and the adjacent regions, Alexander the Great faced threats both from without and from within.93 His concern with anchoring a Macedonian presence in this region both for security purposes and as a safeguard against nomadic tribes on the steppes to the north can be seen in the Alexandreias he allegedly founded there.94 It is important to bear in mind that in Bactria and the adjacent regions Alexander and his successors faced a unique challenge that had not manifested itself elsewhere in the Middle East: resistance and opposition from the Greek settlers. Diodorus twice refers to this: he says that when a rumor spread that Alexander had died, “the Greeks who had been settled in Bactria and Sogdiana, who had long borne unhappily their sojourn among peoples of another race and now received word that the king had died of his wounds, revolted against the Macedonians” (17.99.5, trans. Welles).95 He also says that, subsequently, “the Greeks who had been settled by Alexander in the upper satrapies, as they were called, although they longed for the Greek customs and manners of life and were cast away in the most distant part of the kingdom, yet submitted while the king was alive through fear; but when he was dead they rose in revolt” (18.7.1, trans. Geer).96 I might add, incidentally, that there is no evidence for the same level of dissatisfaction among, for example, the Greeks who had been settled in Mesopotamia or Syria.
As regards the native population, there are, of course, examples of opposition to Macedonian rule: consider what happened at SAMAREIA. But this was apparently the exception. There was native resistance to Macedonian conquest; one thinks, for example, of the resistance of the inhabitants of Tyre and Gaza. But, as far as we know, there was no organized or prolonged resistance to Macedonian rule in Syria or Mesopotamia in the early Hellenistic period. In short, it would appear that the newly established Macedonian presence in the Middle East was generally accepted without extensive or prolonged native opposition. It is worth noting that in these same regions we do not find evidence for a program of organized settlement foundings by Alexander.
The situation in central Asia was quite different. There, Alexander faced fierce and prolonged resistance to Macedonian conquest and, subsequently, to Macedonian rule. To use a term that was widely (mis)used during the Vietnam War, the “pacification” of central Asia was far more challenging than anything Alexander had faced anywhere else. In short, the king’s task in central Asia was quite complex: he had to deal with opposition and resistance from settlers and natives as well as with various external threats. Furthermore, as Alexander advanced farther and farther east into central Asia, he was soon approaching the frontiers of the (former) Achaemenid empire, frontiers that would essentially form the border of his own empire. These geopolitical challenges may help explain Alexander’s decisions to establish settlements at various places in the region. Whether the settlements were a reaction to or a cause of native opposition and resistance may be debated.
Alexandreias
The literature on Alexander and on the number and purpose of his foundations is quite extensive.97 The number of foundations attributed to Alexander reached a peak with Plutarch’s claim of seventy (De Alex. Fort. 328E) and then declined rapidly, leveling off at approximately twelve. Stephanos attributed twenty foundations to the Macedonian king (s.vv. “Alexandreia,” “Boos Kephalai,” and “Boukephaleia”) plus another two or three (s.vv. “Dion” and “Euporia”) that are clearly unhistorical.98 The ? recension of the Greek Alexander Romance ascribed thirteen foundations to Alexander but listed only nine. The ?' and Γ recensions of the Greek Romance recorded twelve settlements attributed to the Macedonian king, as did the Chronicon Paschale 321 (CSHB 4.1), the Excerpta Latina Barbari 34b (ed. Schoene [Appendix 6 in Eusebi Chronicorum vol. 1), and Julius Valerius (3.60 [1445–1450], ed. Rosellini). In other versions of the Romance, the number varied only slightly, if at all: for example, the Armenian, Syriac [thirteen?], and Ethiopic mentioned twelve; the Analecta Syriaca referred to thirteen; the Hebrew also recorded thirteen, while the Arabic geographer Yakut recorded fifteen in the Mu’jam al-Buldân (Geographical Dictionary) and sixteen in the Mushtarik (Dictionary of Geographical Homonyms).99 Lists of foundations attributed to Alexander are also found in the Perso-Arabic (Iranian) literature: for example, in al-Tabari (839–923 A.D.), al-Dinawari (ninth century A.D.), Hamza al-Isfahani (884-c. 961 A.D.), and Qudama ibn Ja’far (d. 948 A.D.).100 Al-Tabari says the Macedonian king built twelve cities, all named Alexandreia; he then gives their names.101 Al-Dinawari says Alexander built twelve cities, but names only seven.102 Hamza records a tradition that Alexander founded twelve cities in Iran—all of them called Alexandreia—but he then mentions only eleven.103 Qudama ascribes nine cities to the Macedonian king.104 The Pahlavi Provincial Capitals of Eranshahr (ed. Markwart) does not include a list but does provide a number of attributions (12, 53).105 Finally, the Christian Egyptian physician Eutychios (Sa’ îd ibn al-Batrîq, 877–940 A.D.) says that Alexander “built thirteen cities in the East and the West . . . and he built Alexandria in Egypt.” Unfortunately, he does not name the cities—other than ALEXANDREIA near Egypt—that he attributed to Alexander.106 The foundations included in these various Romance and Romance tradition lists are not uniform, nor can definite identifications be made in every case.107
Other ancient authors focused on Alexander’s activity in particular regions. Thus, Strabo (11.11.4) says Alexander founded eight poleis in Bactria and Sogdiana; Justin (12.5.3) says he founded twelve (seven, according to another manuscript) there. Curtius Rufus (7.10.15–16) claimed Alexander chose six sites for foundations in Margiana.108
Whatever the exact number, there is general agreement among most scholars that the total number of settlements that can be attributed to Alexander with any degree of certainty is less than Plutarch’s seventy.109 V. Tcherikover came up with a figure of approximately thirty-four—as he noted, roughly half Plutarch’s number.110 However, he considered many in his list to be questionable or doubtful.
TCHERIKOVER
1 Alexandropolis in Thrace
2 Gaza
3 Alexandreia near Egypt
4 Alexandreia on the Caucasus
5 Alexandreia on the Tanais
6 Nikaia in India
7 Boukephala
8 Arigaion
9 Alexandreia on the Akesines
10 Alexandreia on the Indus and Akesines
11 Alexandreia Sogdiana
12 Xylenopolis
13 Barke
14 Arbis-Alexander’s Harbor
15 Alexandreia Rhambakia
16 Alexandreia on the Pallakottas
17 Alexandreia Charax
“ZWEIFELHAFTE”
1 Alexandreia on the Latmos
2 Samareia
3 Alexandreia in Assyria
4 Alexandreia in Parthia
5 Alexandreia in Aria
6 Alexandreia in Arachosia
7 Alexandreia in Sakastane
8 Prophthasia
9 Another city in the Caucasus (Kadrusi)
10 Alexandreia in Bactria
11 Alexandreia on the Oxus
12 Alexandreia Soriana
13 Alexandreia in Carmania
“NICHT ZU ENDE GEFüHRTE GRüNDUNGEN”
1 Ilion
2 Taxila
3 The capital city of the Musikanoi
4 Patala
Tarn claimed that thirteen settlements could be definitely attributed to Alexander.111
TARN
1 Alexandreia near Egypt
2 Alexander in Aria
3 Alexandreia in Arachosia
4 Alexandreia in Margiana
5 Alexandreia on the Oxus
6 Alexandreia Eschate
7 Alexandreia in Susiana
8 Alexandreia Prophthasia
9 Alexandreia-Bactra
10 Alexandreia of the Caucasus
11 Alexandreia Boukephala
12 Alexandreia Iomousa
13 Alexandreia in Makrene
P. M. Fraser believed eight settlements could definitely be attributed to Alexander. (At the end of his Cities of Alexander the Great Fraser concluded that he could attribute only six foundations to Alexander. Elsewhere, however, he indicated that he believed two other cities—Alexandreia in Arachosia and Alexandreia in Parapamisadai—could be considered authentic.)112
FRASER
1 Alexandreia near Egypt
2 Alexandreia in Aria
3 Alexandreia Eschate
4 Alexandreia in Susiana
5 Alexandreia Boukephala
6 Alexandreia among the Oreitai (Rhambakia)
7 Alexandreia in Arachosia
8 Alexandreia in Parapamisadai
In an article evaluating (and reacting to) the works of Tarn and Fraser, N. G. L. Hammond suggested that one should not dismiss Plutarch’s number out of hand and speculated that the total of Alexander’s foundations might, in fact, have been around seventy.113 Hammond, however, did not provide a list of the settlements that he believed were founded by the king.
A further problem is the difficulty of identifying the various Alexandreias. In antiquity (and later) some of these Alexandreias were referred to by different identifying tag lines or epithets. It is quite possible that different authors, undoubtedly reflecting different local traditions, might have been referring to the same Alexandreia by different epithets. The resulting confusion presents significant challenges for the scholar. To give one example: it has been suggested that ALEXANDREIA OXEIANA should be identified with ALEXANDREIA NEAR BAKTRA (Fraser), ALEXANDREIA IN SOGDIANA (Tarn), or the settlement at AÏ KHANOUM or Termez (Bernard).114
Finally, it is sobering to note that we do not definitely know the exact location of any Alexandreia or any other alleged Hellenistic settlement in Bactria. In fact, the only settlement in Bactria that can be definitely located is the one at Aï Khanoum; but in that case we do not know its ancient name!115
The Seleucids in the East
The history of the Seleucid empire is the story of the continuing loss over time of lands at a distance—both west and east—from northern Syria. In the east, these territories were all on the periphery of the empire, stretching in a broad arc from Armenia and Media Atropatene (modern Azerbaijan) to northwest of the Iranian plateau to Bactria (roughly, modern Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan) and India (southern Afghanistan and Pakistan) in the southeast. Just as the British in the nineteenth century, the Russians in the twentieth century, and the Americans and their allies in the early twenty-first century, so the Seleucids in antiquity had difficulty controlling this region.
Despite the fact that the founder of the dynasty, Seleukos I Nikator, had married a Bactrian woman, Apama, the daughter of Spitamenes (Arr. 7.4.6), the Seleucids found it difficult to hold on to their possessions in central Asia. Already at the end of the fourth century B.C. the Seleucids were losing territory in the east that they had inherited from Alexander. As a result of his war (305–303 B.C.) and subsequent treaty with Chandragupta, Seleukos ceded territory to the Indian king on terms of intermarriage and the receipt of five hundred elephants.116 The precise extent of the territory ceded by Seleukos is not clear. A “maximalist” view claims that Seleukos yielded a large part of the territory west and north of the Indus, including Arachosia, Gedrosia, Parapamisadai, and possibly even Aria as far as Herat. Among other things, the discovery at Kandahar—which was located in the center of Arachosia—of two inscriptions recording a Greek translation of the edicts of the Mauryan emperor Asoka provides support for the maximalist view.117 A “minimalist” view argues that the territory ceded to Chandragupta was essentially limited to the Indus valley and neighboring regions; in other words, it did not include Arachosia.118 In any event, it would appear that once the treaty with Chandragupta was formalized, Seleucid rule over the eastern territories still under their control (temporarily) stabilized; the Seleucids then maintained control of these areas until the middle of the third century B.C.119
The situation drastically changed in the course of the third quarter of the century (i.e., from c. 250 to c. 220 B.C.) . This was a period of disintegration and collapse all along the eastern (and western) frontier regions of the empire. Of course, it is during this very period that the Seleucids faced serious challenges elsewhere, both inside and beyond the borders of their empire: dynastic disputes on the one hand and chronic warfare with the Ptolemies on the other. It will not be surprising, therefore, to see various centrifugal pressures exploding at this time. In some cases circumstances in these regions reflected the pressures and aspirations of native dynasts and people; in other cases they were the result of adventurous and opportunistic Graeco-Macedonian governors establishing their own independent fiefdoms. But whatever the circumstances, the net result for the Seleucid monarchs was the same: these territories slipped away from Seleucid control. I have already mentioned the rise of the Parthian dynasty and the loss of Parthia and Hyrcania in the period after the mid-third century B.C., which took place in the northeastern part of the Iranian plateau. About the same time, in the eastern region, Diodotos, the Seleucid “governor of the thousand cities of Bactria” (Justin 41.4), removed himself from Seleucid control.120 By the latter part of the third century B.C. Bactria had been consolidated under the authority of Euthydemos. The treaty he signed with Antiochos III in 206 B.C. gave him a free hand over this region.121
Settlements Founded by the Seleucids and/or the Graeco-Bactrian Kings
The Seleucid presence in central Asia is reflected in the names of various settlements: for example, ANTIOCH in Margiana, the refounded ALEXANDREIA, and ANTIOCH in Scythia, possibly a refounded ALEXANDREIA. Another Seleucid foundation, probably in Aria, was SOTEIRA.122 The relatively few Seleucid foundations in the region are, undoubtedly, a reflection of the short and tenuous nature of Seleucid rule there. They also reflect strategic priorities: a glance at a map indicates quite clearly that Seleukos I and Antiochos I focused most of their settlement founding activity on the central and western regions of their vast empire rather than on the eastern periphery. One sees the result of this rather clearly if one considers Appian’s enumeration of the settlements founded by Seleukos I (Syr. 57). Appian says that as a result of this activity, Syria and the “barbarous regions of upper Asia” were filled with towns bearing Greek and Macedonian names. He then proceeds to give a list of town names in Syria and Parthia. In addition he mentions one settlement in India (ALEXANDROPOLIS), one in Scythia (ALEXANDRESCHATA), one in Mesopotamia (NIKEPHORION), and one in Armenia (NIKOPOLIS). Notably absent from Appian’s list are settlements in central Asia (except for SOTEIRA, KALLIOPE, CHARIS, HEKATOMPYLOS, and ACHAIA in Parthia). Fraser provided another explanation for the relative absence of evidence for Seleucid settlements in the region: he suggested that the lists of Alexandreias in the various recensions of the Alexander Romance and in Stephanos were derived from a lost Liber de Urbibus Alexandri that was composed in ALEXANDREIA near Egypt during the third century B.C.—that is, while it was still under Ptolemaic rule. He further suggested that the Liber de Urbibus Alexandri served a propaganda purpose in the struggle between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies by attributing to Alexander settlements that, in fact, had been established by the Seleucids.123 Thus, he mentions ALEXANDREIA in Margiana (ANTIOCH in Margiana), ALEXANDREIA ΠΡΟΣΠΕΡΣΑΣ (ANTIOCH in Persis), ALEXANDREIA on the Tigris River (SELEUKEIA on the Tigris), ALEXANDREIA near Babylon (SELEUKEIA near the Hedyphon?), ALEXANDREIA ΕΠΙ ΣΟΥΣΟΙΣ (SELEUKEIA on the Eulaios), ALEXANDREIA in Scythia (ANTIOCH in Scythia), and ALEXANDREIA in Mesopotamia (ANTIOCH in Mygdonia).124 Other settlements, such as DEMETRIAS in Arachosia as well as EUKRATIDEIA, would have been founded by Graeco-Bactrian dynasts. There are, in addition, other settlements with Greek toponyms about which rather little is known and which cannot, therefore, be ascribed with certainty to any particular monarch or dynasty. Despite that, we can, at the very least, see them as further proof of a Greek presence in the region.
INDIA
In the context of Hellenistic history the toponymic term “India” is used, somewhat arbitrarily, to refer to an area that essentially encompasses modern-day Pakistan and southern Afghanistan—namely, the area roughly between the Hindu Kush and the Indus/Hyphasis River valleys.125 During the Hellenistic period both history and geography conspired to keep this region far removed from Greek lands and areas of intensive Greek habitation. The area had been traversed by Alexander, and then briefly came under the control of Seleukos I Nikator. However, as I have mentioned, already at the end of the fourth century B.C. Seleukos I was forced to cede the region to the Mauryan Chandragupta. Subsequently, the loss of Parthia and Hyrcania to the Parthian dynasty in the period after the mid-third century B.C., and the ascent of Bactria around the same time, effectively removed these regions from Seleucid control and thus further removed northwest India from regular overland contact with the rest of the Seleucid empire.126 As for Mauryan rule, it lasted until the early second century B.C., when it was overthrown by Pushyamitra. The collapse of the Mauryan dynasty essentially created a vacuum into which the Graeco-Bactrians moved. By invading India and establishing power there they effectively extended—at this relatively late date in the Hellenistic period—a Greek presence into India.
As is the case for Bactria, the number of likely Hellenistic settlements whose exact location can be fixed is disappointingly small. For example, scholars have not been able to identify the precise site of any of the Alexandreias that were located in India. In a number of other instances—for example, BOUKEPHALA and NIKAIA—the sources point to a likely general area; nevertheless, it has not yet been possible to fix their exact site. In still other instances, where we can identify the location of a particular town—for example, PUSHKALAVATI and TAXILA—we cannot definitely affirm that this had been the site of a Hellenistic foundation.
As with Bactria, the extant literary sources provide only a fragmentary account of the history of the region when it was under Greek hegemony. Most of the kings and subkings are known to us only through coins that have survived. But even if the numismatic evidence does not allow a complete reconstruction of the history of the region, it does—by its very abundance and high quality—call attention to the region’s wealth.
1. See, for example, Herzfeld, Empire 313–17; Musti in CAH2 7:183–84; Sullivan, Royalty 96–105, 280–91, et passim; Schottky, Media 76–231; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 190–97; P. Bernard, Topoi Supplément 1 (1997) 181–85; Mittag, Antiochos 296–98 et passim; and M.-L. Chaumont, Syria 70 (1993) 431–41; R. H. Hewsen, REArm 13 (1979) 77–97 (on Armenian historical geography). On the alleged Thessalian origins of Armenia see Strabo 11.14.12–14 (“There is an ancient story of the Armenian race to this effect: that Armenus of Armenum, a Thessalian city . . . accompanied Jason into Armenia; and Cyrsilus the Pharsalian and Medius the Larisaean, who accompanied Alexander, say that Armenia was named after him. . . . They say that the clothing of the Armenians is Thessalian. . . . I have already discussed Medeia in my account of the Medes; and therefore, from all this it is supposed that both the Medes and the Armenians are in a way kinsmen to the Thessalians and the descendants of Jason and Medeia”; trans. Jones); and P. Bernard in Topoi Supplement 1 (1997) 131–216.
2. See Mehl, Seleukos 296 n. 33 (“Völlig unklar ist die Situation bezüglich Armenien”); Brodersen, Komment 123; Schmitt, Antiochos 37–38; Schottky, Media 92–94; Bernard, Topoi Supplement 1 (1997) 183, suggested that Armenia might have come under the control of Seleukos I in 281 after the battle of Korupedion.
3. On Mygdonia in Mesopotamia see, for example, Bousdroukis, Recherches 40–47. ANTHEMOUSIAS and BATNAI were the names of both a settlement and the region around it in northern Mesopotamia. See those entries.
4. Strabo does say that Gordyene east of the Tigris was named for Gordys the son of Triptolemos who migrated and settled there (7.1.25, 7.2.5; see also 16.1.24). But here we are in the realm of mythological origins; see also the scholiast to Lycophron (ed. Scheer) 1443. On Gordyene see E. Herzfeld, Memnon 1 (1907) 121–22.
5. See Mørkholm, Antiochus 125–26; id., INC Rome 2:63–67.
6. Of course the absence of these mints in the regions beyond northern Mesopotamia may also reflect the swiftly declining Seleucid control after the mid-second century B.C.
7. Mørkholm, Antiochus 126.
8. In CAH 7:155–56 and SEHHW 478, where he described Syria and northern Mesopotamia as “the centre of his [i.e., Seleukos’s] power and the seat of his great capitals.”
9. See, for example, Sherwin-White in Hellenism 16–18 and below; Briant in Religion 47. Cf. Bickerman, who remarked—citing Strabo 11.9.2—that “Iran and Syria were two heartlands of the Seleucid Empire” (in La Persia [1966] 108).
10. Samarkhand 1, 91; see, earlier, Ach. Hist. 8: 311.
11. In Religion 47; see also Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 36–39 on the importance of Hellenistic Babylonia—“the core of the empire”; see also Van der Spek in Roi et economie 304; and Kuhrt (in Hellenistic Kingship 41–54), who emphasized the presence of the Seleucids in Babylonia. For the opposite view see, for example, P. Lévêque, who earlier remarked: “Son vrai centre est la Syrie . . . . Séleucos est un Grec et il veut faire de sa conquête un Etat grec, donc méditerranéen” (Le monde hellénistique [Paris, 1969] 42).
12. See also the discussion in the various articles published in Topoi 4/2 (1994); and L. Martinez-Sève, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne, Supplément 5: 92–93.
13. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW 78–79; Cary, Geographic Background 183 n. 1.
14. See, for example, A. Goetze, JCS 7 (1953) 51–72; id., JCS 18 (1964) 114–19; W. W. Hallo, JCS 18 (1964) 57–88; A. L. Oppenheim, JCS 21 (1969) 238–54.
15. On Emar see A. Finet in The Land of Israel: Crossroads of Civilizations, ed. E. Lipinski (Leuven, 1985) 27–38.
16. Kessler, Untersuchungen 228–29; Graf in Ach. Hist. 8:180.
17. See, for example, Syme, Anatolica 3–23; Graf in Ach. Hist. 8:180–81; Briant, Empire perse 369–373.
18. DAE 67 = ArD 6; see Graf in Ach. Hist. 8:181; Briant, Empire perse 371.
19. 16.1.27; on this road see Dillemann, Mésopotamie 133, 177.
20. See W. H. Schoff, Parthian Stations by Isidore of Charax (Philadelphia, 1914); FGrH 781; M.-L. Chaumont, Syria 61 (1984) 63–107; Gawlikowski in GHPO 76–98.
21. See especially Dillemann, Mésopotamie 132–92.
22. See, for example, M. Gawlikowski, Iraq 58 (1996) 123–33; Briant in Ach. Hist. 6:77–79. It is probable that Ps.-Scylax (Periplus 102 = GGM 1:77) meant the Orontes when he referred to the Thapsakos River; see Müller’s discussion and Grainger, Seleukid Syria 17. If this is so, it would reflect the fact that the Orontes River valley was the beginning of the caravan route to the Euphrates crossing at Thapsakos.
23. See also Briant in Ach. Hist. 6:77.
24. Strabo 1.3.1; see A. B. Breebart, Mnemosyne 20 (1967) 422–31; Briant in Ach. Hist. 6:78–79.
25. Xen. Anab. 1.4.11–17. On the itinerary of the 10,000 see, for example, Manfredi, La strada 95–149; F. Joannès, Pallas 43 (1995) 173–200; Lee, A Greek Army 18–42.
26. See Strabo, who refers to the “old Zeugma” at Thapsakos (16.1.21–23).
27. See Honigmann, RE s.v. “Syria,” esp. 1718; Dyer, Dict. Geog. s.v. “Syria.” See also J. Markwart (REArm [1966] 311): “Ammien, comme Strabon, entend par Assyrie, non pas un territoire determiné, mais l’ensemble, de Babylonie et d’Assyrie, au-delà de la frontière romaine, c’est-à-dire y compris la region de l’Euphrate (cf. liv. 23, ch. 2, 7, 3, 1, liv. 24, l.1).” On the origins and history of the terms “Syria” and “Assyria” see J. A. Tvedtnes, JNES 40 (1981) 139–40; and R. N. Frye, JNES 51 (1992) 281–85.
28. CAH 7:184. For Hellenistic settlements on the banks of the Euphrates see, for example, Gaborit, Géographie historique 107–10.
29. Note that a number of the ancient writers did not include Babylonia in Mesopotamia; see, for example, Strabo 16.1.21; Ptol. 5.18.1.
30. Diod. 18.39.6, 19.27.4. For Babylonia from the late Achaemenid period to 301 B.C. see, for example, Kuhrt and Sherwin-White in Ach. Hist. 8:311–27. For the half century after the death of Alexander see especially Bosworth, Legacy esp. 1–64.
31. E. M. Anson, Eumenes of Cardia 158, 164; Bosworth, Legacy 113.
32. On the battle of Gabiene see, for example, Bosworth, Legacy 147–57 et passim; Billows, Antigonos 101–3, 317–18, et passim; and Anson, Eumenes 184–88 et passim.
33. Billows, Antigonos 415.
34. For the date see Bosworth, Legacy 219–25; cf. Billows, Antigonos 134 n. 67 (311 B.C.).
35. For Antigonos’s campaign in Babylonia in 310–c. 308 B.C. see, for example, Mehl, Seleukos 129–34; P. Wheatley, JNES 61 (2002) 39–47; Schober, Untersuchungen 106–39; Boiy, Babylon 125–37; Capdetrey, Pouvoir 42. For the decade c. 319–309 B.C. see also BCHP 3 (“Diadochi Chronicle”) = ABC 10 and Van der Spek’s commentary.
36. Billows, Antigonos 146–47; see also P. Bernard, BCH 114 (1990) 531; id., Topoi Supplément 1 (1997) 185–86 n. 181; see further EDESSA, n. 2.
37. Briant in Religion 47; Billows, Antigonos 48.
38. Billows, Antigonos 292–305; and Bernard, Topoi Supplément 1 (1997) 185 n. 181.
39. Cohen, Settlements in Syria 21–28.
40. See, for example, P. Clancier, Topoi 15 (2007) 41–46; Capdetrey, Pouvoir 25–38. For Hellenistic Babylonia see also www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/chron00.html and www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/en/oi/nod/onderzoek/OND1297087/.
41. Arr. 7.8.21, 7.19.3–4; see also Högemann, Alexander 48–52 et passim; Boiy, Babylon 104–17.
42. Boiy, Babylon 125–34.
43. Scharrer in West und Ost 95–128.
44. See, for example, Joannès, Age of Empires 10–11; Boiy, Babylon passim; P. Clancier, Topoi 15 (2007) 21–74.
45. P. Bernard, BCH 114 (1990) 532–36; Kuhrt and Sherwin-White in Ach. Hist. 8:321. Bactria and, possibly, elephants (the latter is restored) are also mentioned in BCHP7 [ = ABC 13A] Obv. 14 (“Antiochus and India Chronicle”). Finally, BCHP 9 Rev. 8 (“End of Seleucus Chronicle”) also mentions Bactria. For the Seleucids in Babylonia see, especially, Van der Spek, Reallexikon s.vv. “Seleukiden, Seleukidenreich.”
46. Le Rider, Suse 446–49; id. in Sociétés et compagnies 121–27. See also C. P. Jones, Tyche 7 (1992) 128; and Teixidor in Materialien 292.
47. Rostovtzeff, Caravan Cities 25, 95; id., SEHHW 457–61.
48. In the Aegean basin itself there is evidence attesting the presence of individuals from the Near East. For example, an inscription from the island of Andros in the Aegean, dated palaeographically to the third century B.C. (IG XII.5715 = I. Estremo Oriente 99), records a decree that honors a certain Dromon, son of Phanodemos, a Babylonian; see Appendix X. Other public documents from Delos and Delphi mention persons from Antioch and Laodikeia (presumably the Syrian cities), Sidon, Tyre, Beirut (I. Delos 2598) and Seleukeia on the Tigris (I. Delos 2429 and 2445; see also Klee, Gymnischen Agone 16 [Kos]). A Delphic proxenos decree honored Asklepiades, a Phoenician (SGDI 2589), while documents from Delos refer to Theokritos (IG XI.4 591.3) and Xenodemos (IG XI.4 633.3–4), both Syrians, as well as Hyspasinos/Hyspaisinos, a Bactrian (I. Delos 442.B.108, 1432.AaII.27).
A number of individuals from SELEUKEIA on the Tigris are found taking part in agonistic contests or resident in various places in the Greek world—e.g., Athens (C. Habicht and S. V. Tracy, Hesperia 60 [1991] 188, col. I.6 [170/69 B.C.]), Lebedeia in Boeotia (S. N. Koumanoudes, Archaiologikon Deltion 26 [1971] 36 [second/first century B.C.]), Rhodes (C. P. Jones, Tyche 7 [1992] 124, l. A.18 [second/first century B.C.]), and Olympia (Eusebius Chron. I [ed Schoene, 1875] 212 [100 B.C.]). The Panathenaic victor lists from Hellenistic Athens include, for example, individuals from as far away as ANTIOCH near Daphne, LAODIKEIA by the Sea, LAODIKEIA in Phoenicia, ANTIOCH in Mygdonia (Nisibis), and SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, as well as persons from ANTIOCH on the Kydnos and ANTIOCH on the Pyramos in eastern Asia Minor. There is epigraphic evidence for a merchant from Gerrha in Arabia at Delos in the mid-second century B.C.; see I. Delos 1439 Abc II.24, 1442 A.82, B.58; 1444 Aa.45, 51; 1449 Aab II.28–29, 61; 1450 A.119; see also C. Robin, Semitica 24 (1974) 95. Further evidence for commercial relations between the Aegean basin on the one hand and southern Mesopotamia, Susiana, the Persian Gulf, and Arabia on the other is provided by Rhodian amphora handles found at, among other places, SELEUKEIA on the Tigris, BABYLON, SELEUKEIA on the Eulaios (Susa), IKAROS in the Persian Gulf, and Thaj in Arabia (C. Börker, BaM 7 [1974] 31–49). S. M. Sherwin-White (Ancient Cos [Göttingen, 1978] 246, 370–71) called attention to a fragmentary inscription from Kos recording a dedication of Kasmaios son of Abdaios, which she suggested might provide evidence for another merchant from Gerrha. Note, however, that E. Eissfeldt, Kleine Schriften [Tübingen, 1963] 2: 310 read Kasmaios’s ethnic as ΓΕΡ[ΑΣΗΝΟΣ]. In other words, Eissfeldt believed the reference was to Gerasa in Trans-Jordan; followed by H. Seyrig, Syria (1965) 26 n. 2, who, nevertheless, mentioned the objection of J. T. Milik, who observed that “Kasmaios son of Abdaios” was an unlikely name for someone from Gerasa at this date. Milik preferred restoring ΓΕΡ[ΡΑΙΟΣ], i.e., for one of the towns named Gerrha.
49. Arr. Anab. 7.19.3–20.10 and Ind. 43.8; Strabo 16.1.11, 16.4.27. See also H. Schiwek, BJ 162 (1962) 36–97; C. Roueché and S. M. Sherwin-White, Chiron 15 (1985) 6–7; Högemann, Alexander 80–111; G. W. Bowersock, Gnomon 59 (1987) 508–11; Potts, Arabian Gulf 2:4–6; Martinez-Sève in Seleucids 56–63.
50. Polyb. 13.9.4–5. On this expedition see, for example, Schmitt, Antiochos 49; Salles in Hellenism 96; Boucharlat and Mouton in Arabia Antiqua 277; Teixidor in Materialien 292–93.
51. See ALEXANDREIA/ANTIOCH/Spasinou Charax, n. 15. The historical setting of this third expedition has been the subject of much discussion, based as it is on two problematic references in Pliny. At NH 6.147 Pliny mentions an expedition that Antiochos IV Epiphanes allegedly dispatched to explore the coast of Arabia (“We will now describe the coast from Charax onward which was first explored for [King] Epiphanes”; trans. Rackham; cf. NH 6.138–39). At NH 6.152 Pliny says that “the governor of Mesene appointed by King Antiochus, Numenius, here won a battle against the Persians with his fleet” (trans. Rackham). There are problems with both these passages: (a) Antiochos IV Epiphanes was not the first Seleucid king to explore the Persian Gulf; (b) Pliny does not specify which King Antiochos appointed Numenios. As Roueché and Sherwin-White noted (Chiron 15 [1985] 9 and n. 21), the attested Greek explorations of the Gulf are (1) Alexander’s explorers, (2) the expedition of Antiochos III, and (3) the military expedition of Numenios. Roueché and Sherwin-White concluded that Pliny’s attribution of the expedition of Numenios to Epiphanes resulted from his confusing Antiochos IV with Antiochos III. On the other hand, Mørkholm (Antiochus 169; see also Mittag, Antiochos IV 302) suggested that Antiochos Epiphanes did, in fact, explore the Gulf and that Pliny erred only in claiming that Epiphanes’ expedition was the first. Finally, in a forthcoming article, P. J. Kosmin has called attention to the fragmentary Astronomical Diary for 164 B.C., which mentions “Antiochos the k[ing . . . ] from the cities o[f . . . ] who went along the seashore” (Astronomical Diaries 2:497, no. 164 Obv. C13–14 [trans. Kosmin]; see also D. Gera and W. Horowitz, JAOS 117 [1997] 243–49). This would appear to confirm the information in Pliny NH 6.147. For other discussions see Mørkholm Antiochus 169 n. 14; and ALEXANDREIA/ANTIOCH/Spasinou Charax, n. 15.
In connection with these allusions to Seleucid naval activity in the Gulf, we may note there has been some discussion as to whether the Seleucids maintained a (permanent) fleet in the Gulf. Salles claimed there was such a “naval presence” (in Hellenism 97 and Topoi 4 [1994] 607); Hannestad—pointing to the scanty nature of the material remains to support such a theory—questioned this (in ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ 55). However, the discovery in 1997 and subsequent publication in 2002 of the dedication made on Bahrain by Kephisidoros suggest the Seleucids probably did maintain a permanent fleet in the Persian Gulf; see below, p. 116; and BAHRAIN.
52. See Tarn (GBI2 481–85), who suggested there was a Seleucid settlement around the Strait of Hormuz. Note, however, Salles, who correctly observed (in Hellenism 80) that although this is a plausible suggestion it is thus far unsupported by any archaeological evidence. In addition, I would mention ALEXANDREIA in Carmania and ZETIS, which may have been located on the Iranian coast of the Strait of Hormuz or just beyond it. Finally, we may search for ARTEMITA, TRAPEZOUS, and KARRHAI in the Persian Gulf area. Unfortunately, we do not know the exact location of any of these settlements.
53. In Hellenism 75–109.
54. For the problem relating to the location of these last three settlements see ARETHOUSA (in southern Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf).
55. R. Boucharlat, RA (1989) 216–17; id. in Golf-Archäologie 289; Boucharlat and Mouton in Arabia Antiqua 279–80; Boucharlat and Mouton in Materialien 224; Teixidor in Materialien 293.
56. P.-L. Gatier, P. Lombard, and K. al-Sindi, AAE 13 (2002) 223–31; J. Marcillet-Jaubert, Syria 67 (1990) 665–73; Herling and Salles in Materialien 161–82; Teixidor in Materialien 292; Potts, Arabian Gulf 2:103–24; Salles in Hellenism 81; see also BAHRAIN. Note, on the other hand, Boucharlat, who earlier emphasized the paucity of Greek finds at Qal’at al-Bahrain (in Bahrain 440). For similar cautionary notes see, for example, Salles in Hellenism 86–87 and in Arabie Orientale 161; see also Garlan in Trade and Famine 37, 40. This caution should now be balanced against the more recent discovery of the Greek inscriptions mentioned above.
57. In general, see Sprenger, Geographie Arabiens 135–37; Tkac, RE Suppl. VII, s.v. “Gerrha”; Högemann, Alexander 89–94; and Potts, Arabian Gulf 2:85–97.
58. See above.
59. Potts in Arabie Orientale 119; T. G. Bibby, Preliminary Survey in East Arabia 1968 (Copenhagen, 1973) 16; A. Jamme and V. Grace, Studi Semitici 23 (1966) 83; C. Börker, BaM 7 (1974) 45. For the likely identification of Thaj as the site of Gerrha see Potts, Arabian Gulf 2:85–88; see also the popular article by R. Covington, Saudi Aramco World (March/April 2011) 32–33. It is possible that there was a mint at Thaj (Potts, Pre-Islamic Coinage p. 13).
60. See, for example, O. Mørkholm, Kuml (1960) 203–4; id., Kuml (1972) 195–202; C. Robin, Semitica 24 (1974) 84–125; Potts, Pre-Islamic Coinage pp. 13–14, 17, and, for example, nos. 43–74 and 485–88; id., Pre-Islamic Coinage, Supplement nos. 8–48; Coinage of the Caravan Kingdoms 42–49, nos. 104–14. See also C. J. Howgego and D. T. Potts, AAE 3 (1992) 183–89.
61. AJN 14 (2002) 77–78.
62. Strabo 11.13.6, 15.3.12, 16.1.17, on which see, for example, Biffi, Strabone 130. On Apolloniatis/Sittakene see, for example, Manfredi, La strada 149–58.
63. On population transfer in the ancient Near East see G. M. Cohen in Egypt and the Hellenistic World, ed. E. van ‘t Dack (Leuven, 1981) 64–66. See also B. Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden, 1970); the articles “Exile, Assyrian” (A. Malamat) and “Exile, Babylonian” (B. Porten) in Encyclopaedia Judaica; Altheim-Stiehl, Geschichte 158–61; Briant, L’Asie centrale 97; id., Empire perse 446–47.
64. Ancient table of contents to Diodorus book 17: “How the Branchidae, who of old had been settled by the Persians on the borders of their kingdom . . . ” (trans. Welles); Ael. Varia Hist. 6.14: “Darius . . . dispatched them [i.e., plotters against him] in various directions, sending some to the Indian frontier, others to the Scythian” (trans. Wilson).
65. See also Briant, L’Asie centrale 97; and Rougemont, IGIAC 206 n. 733.
66. See Appendix IX.
67. KTESIPHON was, of course, a very important urban center. On the other hand, it is not clear whether it was a Hellenistic foundation.
68. On the Iranian plateau see, for example, Meyer, EB11 s.v. “Iran”; Frye, Heritage 1–14; Christensen, Iranshahr 117–35; on the term “Iran” see Frye, Heritage 2–3. For the historical geography of the Iranian plateau see especially Frye, Iran 1–20 (review of ancient and modern sources on pp. 1–5); for the history of the region under Alexander and the Seleucids see pp. 137–75. See also Bickerman in La Persia (1966) 87–117; id. in CHIr 3(1): 3–20; Christensen, Iranshahr 59–63, 135–41; Wiesehöfer, Jahrhunderte 23–139 (bibliography, pp. 144–67); id. in Age of the Parthians 37–49; Capdetrey, Pouvoir 28–30, 38–43, 76–81, 101–4, 267–71.
69. On the “pays d’en haut” see R. White, The Middle Ground (Cambridge, 1991) X–XI.
70. Cf. the Theraian colonization of Libya. According to Herodotus (4.153) the total founding population fit into two pentekonters.
71. See, for example, Christensen, Iranshahr 117.
72. See, for example, Meyer, EB11 s.v. “Iran”; Frye, Heritage 1–14.
73. See especially Bickerman in CHIr 3(1): 4–7.
74. See above, pp. 14–15.
75. See, for example, Capdetrey, Pouvoir 252–54.
76. Bickerman in CHIr 3(1): 3.
77. In CHIr 3(1): xxiv-xxvii. Cf. the minimal Hellenization in Babylonia (Oelsner in Ideologies 183–96).
78. HC3 162.
79. On Hellenistic settlements in the region of the Iranian plateau see, for example, Christensen, Iranshahr 135–141; Frye, Iran 152–63.
80. For the fame of Media as a center for horse raising see also Polyb. 5.44.1 and Strabo 11.13.7. Herodotus (7.40) had also noted the fame of the Nisaian horses, as did Arrian (7.13.1). The latter, however, observed that by Alexander’s time the herd had been significantly reduced, the victim of depredation by robbers. See also, for example, Mannert, Geographie 5.2:169–70; Newell, ESM pp. 167–68; Aperghis, Economy 63. Cf. LARISA and APAMEIA on the Axios in northern Syria.
81. See, for example, ESM 428, 433–56, etc.; and Seleucid Mints 200–217, 409–17, 419–20 etc.
82. Comment. 2:232; Tarn, GBI2 8–9. Walbank also followed Tarn’s suggestion that these were military settlements rather than full cities.
83. Aperghis, Economy 42; Shipley, Greek World 281.
84. L. Robert, Hellenica (1960) 85–91 = SEG 20:325 = I. Estremo Oriente 280 = Euphrat 312 = IGIAC 76.
85. Samarkhand 82.
86. For the geographic limits of Parthia—roughly, northeastern Iran and southwestern Turkmenistan—see P. Bernard, Topoi 4 (1994) 481–90 and map on p. 482.
87. The chronology of the secession of Parthia and Bactria from Seleucid control is much disputed. Essentially there are two schools of thought: a “high” chronology that places the secession in the decade of the 240s, at the end of the reign of Antiochos II Theos; and a “low” chronology that places it in the early 230s, under the reign of Seleukos II Kallinikos. For the “high” chronology see, for example, Tarn, GBI2 80; E. Bickerman, Berytus 8 (1944) 79–83; Holt, Thundering Zeus 55–60; and Capdetrey, Pouvoir 124–30; for the “low” chronology see, for example, J. Wolski, Bulletin internationale de l’Académie polonaises des sciences et lettres Supplement 5 (Cracow, 1947) 13–55; id., Berytus 12 (1956–1957) 35–52; id., Seleucids 43–56; Schmitt, Antiochos 64–66, 70–76; Will, Histoire politique2 1:301–8; Bivar in CHIr 3(1): 28–29; P. Bernard, Topoi 4 (1994) 481–502; Lerner, Seleucid Decline 11–31. In general, see the discussion of Musti in CAH2 7.1:213, 219–20: “Even if it began under Antiochus II . . . the secession of Bactria and Parthyene took place over a period of years, and that was apparently the period stretching from the last years of Antiochus II to the period of the wars between Seleucus II and Antiochus Hierax.” But, irrespective of the preferred chronological sequence, it is clear that effective and continuous Seleucid control of the region did not extend beyond the 230s. Sherwin-White (Samarkhand 84–89) has argued—unconvincingly—that these regions remained under Seleucid control throughout the third century B.C. and did not come under permanent Parthian rule until the early second century B.C.; contra: see especially Bernard, Topoi 4 (1994) 481–90.
88. On Susa and Susiana during the Hellenistic period see especially Le Rider, Suse 255–96; and Capdetrey, Pouvoir 364–67. See also Frye, Iran 271–75 (Persis and Elymais); and Potts, Elam 354–410 (Elymais).
89. Potts, Elam 358; id., Mesopotamian Civilization 67–70, 148–50.
90. Suse 271 and nos. 47, 52, 64, 78–79, etc.
91. See p. 23.
92. See, for example, Tarn, Alexander 2:233. See also Appendix II. Narain’s suggestion (Indo-Greeks 2–3) that there were settlements of Greeks that predated the arrival of Alexander has met with mixed reception; see also J. Wolski, Klio 38 (1960) 111; and A. Simonetta, East and West 9 (1958) 154–55. On the other hand, cf. Bernard, Aï Khanoum 4:23: “Il s’agit [i.e., pre-Alexandrine colonies of Greeks in central Asia] là d’une pure théorie qui repose essentiellement sur une utilisation abusive de l’épisode du massacre des Branchides et une lecture trop hâtive des sources anciennes qui y font une allusion”; followed by Coloru, Da Alessandro 123–24. See also Rougemont, IGIAC 206 n. 733. On the Achaemenid punitive deportation of Greeks to Bactria and other distant regions of the Persian Empire see above, pp. 25–26.
93. On Hellenistic Bactria see, in general, P. Briant in L’archéologie de la Bactriane ancienne (Paris, 1985) 241–51; Leriche in After Alexander 121–53; Capdetrey, Pouvoir 38–44, 76–82, 367–69, et passim; L. Martinez-Sève, Chiron 40 (2010) 1–27; and Coloru, Da Alessandro; see also the various illustrated articles in DA 247 (October 1999) and De l’Indus (exhibition catalogue); and Cambon in Afghanistan une histoire 29–35. For the Persian satrapies in this region and in India see, for example, Herzfeld, Empire 322–38, 346–47; Briant, Empire perse 764–78.
94. For the Persian policy of transplanting Greeks and others to Bactria see above, pp. 25–26.
95. Curtius Rufus (9.7.1) claims that the revolt was the result of fear of punishment rather than hostility to Alexander. In this regard we may also recall Herodotus’s account of the Theraian colonization of Libya (4.153–59). There the colonists attempted to return home because of difficult economic conditions.
96. On the revolt see Koshelenko, Grecheskij Polis 181–221; Bernard, Aï Khanoum 4:127–28; Coloru, Da Alessandro 130–34; and Rougemont, IGIAC 203 n. 706. On the “upper satrapies” see, for example, Diod. 20.47.5; App. Syr. 57; Strabo 15.2.1, as well as Musti in CAH2 7.1:211; Capdetrey, Pouvoir 38–43; Coloru, Da Alessandro 134–38.
97. See, for example, Droysen, Hist. 2:670–700; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:291–301; Tarn, Alexander 2:232–59; Fraser, Cities; Bosworth, Conquest 245–50; N. G. L. Hammond, GRBS 39 (1998) 243–69; Seibert, Alexander 179–83; Heckel and Yardley, Alexander the Great 303–10.
98. Fraser, Cities 1–2. On the list of Alexandreias in Stephanos see also M. Billerbeck in her edition of Stephanos; Rapin in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 147 n. 24.
99. Fraser, Cities 54–55; the lists are identical except for the absence of BOUKEPHALA from the list in the Mu’jam.
100. See especially the important discussion in Fraser, Cities 47–64; see also Christensen, Iran 50–83.
101. German translation in Nöldeke, Beiträge 47.
102. German translation in Nöldeke, Beiträge 42.
103. Sini Mulûk al-’Ard w’al-Anbîyâ 40, trans. Pourshariati in Indo-Grecs 124 (“Alexandria: Amongst the stories that story-tellers have concocted is that Alexander constructed 12 cities in Iran and called all of them Alexandria. These are said to have included cities in Isfahân, Herât, Marv, Samarqand, Sughd, Babylon and Meysân and four cities in the Sawâd of Iraq. But this news is not trustworthy for Alexander was a destroyer and not a constructor”); on Hamza see also Pourshariati’s article in Indo-Grecs 111–23.
104. For a French translation of the relevant passages see M. J. de Goeje, Kitâb al-Masâlik wa’l-Mamâlik . . . et Excerpta e Kitâb al-Kharâdj auctore Kodâma ibn Dja’Far, BGA 6 (repr., Leiden, 1967) 206–7. On Qudama see, for example, Fraser, Cities 56 and n. 27. On the date of Qudama’s death see Heck, Islamic Civilization 23–24.
105. On the Provincial Capitals of Eranshahr see Markwart, Provincial Capitals.
106. Annales 280 in PG 111:971. See also Fraser, Cities 50–51 and nn. 9–10. On Eutychios see, for example, Griffith, ODB s.v. “Eutychios of Alexandria.”
107. For a stemma of the western and Oriental traditions of the Romance see Fraser, Cities 207.
108. See also N. G. L. Hammond, GRBS 39 (1998) 247–48.
109. See, for example, Cohen, Settlements in Europe 420–23 regarding foundations in Asia Minor that have been attributed to the Macedonian king; contra: Hammond, GRBS 39 (1998) 258–62.
110. HS 145–46.
111. Alexander 2:234.
112. Cities 201, 140, 172, 176, 199.
113. GRBS 39 (1998) 243–69.
114. On the problem of identifying the various Alexandreias in the East see, for example, Fraser, Cities; Rapin in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 143–64.
115. Archaeological excavation has prompted Bernard to suggest that there may have been a Hellenistic settlement at MARAKANDA.
116. Eratosthenes in Strabo 15.2.9 = Berger, Fragmente IIIB 23, 15.1.10 = Fragmente IIIB 6. See also Plut. Alex. 62; App. Syr. 55; Justin 15.4.
117. See, for example, J. Filliozat, Epigraphica Indica 34 (1961–1962) 7; P. Bernard, Aï Khanoum 4:85–95 and earlier bibliography in n. 3; id. in Greek Archaeology 94–103; SEG 52:1521; I. Estremo Oriente 291, 292; Euphrat 201; IGIAC 83 and pp. 168–69 for bibliography. On the political relations between the Mauryan dynasty and the Seleucids see, for example, P. H. L. Eggermont, Persica 2 (1965–1966) 56–66.
118. See, for example, Daffina, L’immigrazione 31–34; Fraser, Afghan Studies 2 (1979) 12 and n. 15; Schober, Untersuchungen 156–83; and earlier bibliography in Bernard, Aï Khanoum 4:86 n. 4.
119. In general, see Tarn, GBI2 70–128; Narain, The Indo-Greeks; id. in CAH2 8:388–421; Schober, Untersuchungen 155–60; Holt, Thundering Zeus 126–30.
120. On the chronological question(s) relating to the loss of Parthia and Bactria see, for example, Musti in CAH2 7.1:213–16, 219–20; P. Bernard, Topoi 4 (1994) 477–80; Holt, Thundering Zeus 58–59; and above.
121. Polyb. 11.39.1–10; see, for example, Schmitt, Antiochos 65–66; Walbank, Comment. 2:312–13; Schober, Untersuchungen 181; Holt, Thundering Zeus 128–30.
122. See, for example, Dani and Bernard in Civilizations 2:88–97.
123. Fraser, Cities 42–43; G. Reger, BMCR (1997) 527–28.
124. Cities 31–33, 240–43.
125. The scholarship on the Greeks in India is quite extensive. In addition to items cited in the various entries see, for example, Eggermont in Aus dem Osten 74–83; articles in G. Pollett, ed., India and the Ancient World (Leuven, 1987) and in J.-C. Carrière et al., eds., Inde Grèce ancienne (Paris, 1995); Capdetrey, Pouvoir 43–50; Parker, Roman India 11–120; and the literature cited in each.
126. See above, p. 31 n. 87; and P. H. L. Eggermont, Persica 2 (1965–1966) 56–58.
