DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45399#0013
THE PARTHIAN COINAGE.
3
is thus really the history of Central Asia under the dominion of the Arsacidae. The so-called
Coinage of Parthia consists of the coins struck under the control of the Arsacid Kings in the
cities and camps of Asia. Neither have anything to do with Parthia proper before the revolt
of Arsaces or after the revolt os Artaxerxes.
As to the race of the Parthians, the balance of evidence is in favour of their Scythic origin.
Justin, Strabo, and Arrian all affirm it. The Parthians themselves believed that they were of
Scythic stock. Archaeological evidence tends to confirm this hypothesis, both negatively and
positively. The negative evidence is the almost absolute want of any traces of a national art.
Architecture and sculpture cease in the East during the Parthian period, or appear only in
feeble imitations of the Greek. It is the especial peculiarity of conquering Scythian and Tartar
tribes thus to leave no trace on the higher growth of the subject peoples. And positively,
whenever we find on coin or bas-relief a Parthian King, he is dressed in attire which appears
to indicate Scythian descent. It is further to be observed that the Arsacid Kings, whenever
hard-pressed by their enemies, were sure of a refuge and an auxiliary force if they ssed to the
barbarian tribes of the far north and east.
Few dates are harder to fix from the testimony of the ancient writers than that of the
Parthian revolt. Some refer it to the reign of Antiochus II. of Syria, some to that of Seleucus,
his successor. Justin appears to declare for either 256 or 250 b.c., and it is to the latter date
that the latest authorities, as Fynes Clinton and Prof. Rawlinson, incline. The question might
probably never have received a satisfactory solution, but for a fortunate discovery (one os the
latest, alas!) of George Smith.1 He found a record which proved that the Parthians made use
of an era of which the 144th year corresponded to the 208th os the Seleucid era, and which
therefore must date from 249-8 b.c. This positive evidence seems to me to override the authority
of contending historians. Perhaps, however, a doubt may suggest itsels whether the commence-
ment of the national era of Parthia would be dated from the revolt of Arsaces, or from that
victory of his successor over Seleucus Callinicus, which the Parthian nation2 “ velut initium
libertatis observant.” Such a doubt would however at once be resolved by our knowledge of
the fact that Seleucus did not ascend the throne of Syria until the year b.c. 247, and his Parthian
expedition cannot be placed earlier than the following year. It is probable then that 248-9 b.c.
was the year, if not of the first revolt os Arsaces, at least of the dawn os success on his endeavour.
Arsaces seems to have been the chief or ruler os a band of Scythians, who dwelt near the
Ochus,3 and were a branch of the tribe of Dahae. Justin says that he was a robber and of
uncertain origin, but this is likely enough to have been a calumny by enemies who could not
appreciate the fine distinction between Tartar warfare and robbery. Arrian4 seems to have
ascribed to him a royal Persian lineage, but we need not accept a story which, if not true,
would have been certain to have been invented. Arsaces’ progress was at first slow, impeded
by former rulers and new rivals, and he is said to have fallen in battle after a reign of but two
G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, 1875, p. 389. 2 Justin, xli. 4. 3 Strabo, xi, 9, 2. 4 Syncellus, Cliron. p. 284.
3
is thus really the history of Central Asia under the dominion of the Arsacidae. The so-called
Coinage of Parthia consists of the coins struck under the control of the Arsacid Kings in the
cities and camps of Asia. Neither have anything to do with Parthia proper before the revolt
of Arsaces or after the revolt os Artaxerxes.
As to the race of the Parthians, the balance of evidence is in favour of their Scythic origin.
Justin, Strabo, and Arrian all affirm it. The Parthians themselves believed that they were of
Scythic stock. Archaeological evidence tends to confirm this hypothesis, both negatively and
positively. The negative evidence is the almost absolute want of any traces of a national art.
Architecture and sculpture cease in the East during the Parthian period, or appear only in
feeble imitations of the Greek. It is the especial peculiarity of conquering Scythian and Tartar
tribes thus to leave no trace on the higher growth of the subject peoples. And positively,
whenever we find on coin or bas-relief a Parthian King, he is dressed in attire which appears
to indicate Scythian descent. It is further to be observed that the Arsacid Kings, whenever
hard-pressed by their enemies, were sure of a refuge and an auxiliary force if they ssed to the
barbarian tribes of the far north and east.
Few dates are harder to fix from the testimony of the ancient writers than that of the
Parthian revolt. Some refer it to the reign of Antiochus II. of Syria, some to that of Seleucus,
his successor. Justin appears to declare for either 256 or 250 b.c., and it is to the latter date
that the latest authorities, as Fynes Clinton and Prof. Rawlinson, incline. The question might
probably never have received a satisfactory solution, but for a fortunate discovery (one os the
latest, alas!) of George Smith.1 He found a record which proved that the Parthians made use
of an era of which the 144th year corresponded to the 208th os the Seleucid era, and which
therefore must date from 249-8 b.c. This positive evidence seems to me to override the authority
of contending historians. Perhaps, however, a doubt may suggest itsels whether the commence-
ment of the national era of Parthia would be dated from the revolt of Arsaces, or from that
victory of his successor over Seleucus Callinicus, which the Parthian nation2 “ velut initium
libertatis observant.” Such a doubt would however at once be resolved by our knowledge of
the fact that Seleucus did not ascend the throne of Syria until the year b.c. 247, and his Parthian
expedition cannot be placed earlier than the following year. It is probable then that 248-9 b.c.
was the year, if not of the first revolt os Arsaces, at least of the dawn os success on his endeavour.
Arsaces seems to have been the chief or ruler os a band of Scythians, who dwelt near the
Ochus,3 and were a branch of the tribe of Dahae. Justin says that he was a robber and of
uncertain origin, but this is likely enough to have been a calumny by enemies who could not
appreciate the fine distinction between Tartar warfare and robbery. Arrian4 seems to have
ascribed to him a royal Persian lineage, but we need not accept a story which, if not true,
would have been certain to have been invented. Arsaces’ progress was at first slow, impeded
by former rulers and new rivals, and he is said to have fallen in battle after a reign of but two
G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, 1875, p. 389. 2 Justin, xli. 4. 3 Strabo, xi, 9, 2. 4 Syncellus, Cliron. p. 284.