THE PARTHIAN COINAGE.

[*. The following slight sketch of the history and coinage of Parthia is put together mainly from three sources: first, the personal researches of the writer among the coins of the British Museum, the Bibliothèque Nationale, etc.; second, the catalogue by the late Count von Prokesch Osten of his own collection; third, Professor Rawlinson's recent history of Parthia. The writer regrets that he has been unable to visit the Museums of Germany and Russia, which doubtless contain many coins unknown to him. He has been obliged to make much use of Count Osten's book, on account of the number of rare and unpublished coins in it, of many of which casts have been kindly forwarded by Dr. Friedländer; but the book is full of small errors and misprints, which have been a continual stumbling-block. Prof. Rawlinson's history has been most valuable, especially because of the copiousness of his references, although he has fallen into a certain number of numismatic errors. The collection of Parthian coins in the British Museum was arranged by the late Count de Salis in accordance with the opinions of M. de Longpérier; and no doubt, if the truth were known, much of what is best in the following pages would be found to be due to the latter savant's ingenuity and experience.]

I. THE AUTHORITIES FOR PARTHIAN HISTORY.

THERE is scarcely any branch of history to which more aptly than to the Parthian can be applied the old saying that history consists of recognized fictions. The course of Parthian annals may be compared to that of a narrow stream passing through a succession of lakes, but itself almost dried up by the summer heat. Where the history of Parthia touches, as it so often does, the annals of Syria and Rome, it suddenly becomes clear and satisfactory. But these reservoirs of knowledge are connected by a thin stream of narrative which often ceases altogether, so that sometimes we are left for a quarter of a century to a chance reference of Lucian, an obscure passage of Josephus, or the sometimes ambiguous evidence of coins. The only consecutive history of the earlier Arsacid kings is the meagre narrative of Justinus, who frequently contradicts both himself and the author, Trogus Pompeius, whom he professes to abridge. Of the later Arsacid kings there is no consecutive history in existence; we have to piece together as best we may scattered notices of Tacitus, Dio, and Josephus.

Nor is anything to be gained by consulting Oriental writers. Moses of Choren cannot indeed be quite neglected, for he occasionally gives us a useful hint; but his value as an authority may be judged from the one fact that he discusses at length the question whether

Croesus was conquered by Cyrus or by Artaxias, father of the Great Tigranes of Armenia, and finally inclines to the latter opinion. Arabic and Persian writers, so far as one who can consult them only in translations may judge, are wilder still. They probably had no means of ascertaining the truth as to the events of the Parthian period. But had they known the truth, they would have distorted it. They were ashamed to own that Asia was so long under Scythic rule; and so not only very much abridge the duration of the Parthian Empire, and reduce the number of its rulers, but they even venture to furnish us with wholly fanciful lists of kings, in which pure Persian names, such as Firuz and Hormazd, figure largely.

And to conclude, there are scarcely, except coins, any certain historical monuments of Parthian times. Setting aside the rock sculpture of Gotarzes and the ruins of Hatra, there is scarcely a stone or brick in Asia which bears witness to Parthian handiwork. Inscriptions there are next to none. Even in the case of the coins, their value as historical evidence is very much diminished by the fact that hardly any, until the close of the first century of our era, bear any name but the generic name of Arsaces. But the coins almost invariably give portraits, and, after the reign of Orodes, the tetradrachms bear dates, so that their testimony is after all of great value. And as far as it goes it is beyond dispute. The historian is bound to prefer the testimony of a single undoubtedly genuine coin to the statements of a Tacitus or a Thucydides; how much rather to the statements of a Justin or a Plutarch. In the present paper I shall therefore push to the utmost every inference which can legitimately be drawn from existing coins, being careful, however, not to be led astray by the ardour of the specialist in his pursuit.

II. OUTLINE OF HISTORY.

The phrases "History of Parthia," "Coinage of Parthia," are apt to convey a false impression to the unwary ear. Properly speaking, Parthia was a strip of country some hundreds of miles east of the southern extremity of the Caspian Sea, inhabited by a hardy and enterprizing race of Scythic origin. Of the history of this district we know little; nor can we be sure that any coins were ever struck there in ancient times. But for five centuries the race of the Arsacidæ, perhaps of Parthian blood, and certainly owing their sway to Parthian armies, occupied that position of supremacy or over-lordship in Central Asia which has fallen in turn to so many peoples-Tartar, Semitic and Arian. For five centuries the Parthian guard was the most highly esteemed portion of the Asiatic armies; Parthian satraps and garrisons held in subjection the provinces which lie between Syria and India; while all the cities within that region paid tribute to the Arsacid King of Kings, and struck money bearing his name and type. For five centuries a people, or rather a camp, without past or future, without a religion, an art, or a policy of its own, assumed the protectorate of the East, and saved Asia from the arms of Rome. But this people did not colonize, did not attempt to impose a language or a polity on the vanquished, left no trace on Asiatic thought. The so-called History of Parthia

is thus really the history of Central Asia under the dominion of the Arsacida. 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 of 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. Archæological 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 fled 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 of the latest, alas!) of George Smith. He found a record which proved that the Parthians made use of an era of which the 144th year corresponded to the 208th of 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 itself whether the commencement 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 of Arsaces, at least of the dawn of success on his endeavour. Arsaces seems to have been the chief or ruler of a band of Scythians, who dwelt near the Ochus, and were a branch of the tribe of Daha. 3 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. Arrian 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

1 G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, 1875, p. 389. 2 Justin, xli. 4. 3 Strabo, xi. 9, 2.

Syncellus, Chron. p. 284.

years, leaving his half-formed kingdom to his brother Tiridates. His capital was the Greek city of Hecatompylus.

Tiridates was the real founder of the Parthian power. His first exploit was the conquest of Hyrcania, which lies to the west of Parthia proper. But he had soon to undergo that test of invasion by which the vitality of all new states is tried. Seleucus Callinicus of Syria prepared in 246 a great eastern expedition against Parthia and Bactria. As always happened in the Syrian expeditions against Parthia, he was at first successful in the field. He forced Tiridates to fly to the territory of the Aspiaca, a Scythian tribe. But he seems to have been less fortunate in a second encounter, when he suffered a great defeat-a defeat which the Parthian nation thenceforward considered as its "baptism of blood" and initiation into liberty, and himself became a prisoner in Parthia. Our testimony for this captivity is not strong,3 but it is confirmed by the fact that Polybius terms Callinicus 'Pogon,' the bearded; and there is in the British Museum a tetradrachm representing him as wearing a long beard, a custom adopted only by those Kings of Syria who were captives in Parthia. In any case Seleucus soon returned to spend the rest of his reign in contests with his brother Antiochus Hierax, and Tiridates was left in security to mould his new kingdom. He built a fresh capital, Dara,1 and is said to have reigned for as much as thirty-seven years.5

It must, nevertheless, be observed that the name and exploits of this King rest only on the authority of Syncellus, who, however, seems to be following Arrian. Other writers, Moses of Choren, Strabo, Justin himself, confuse the first and second Kings of Parthia under the one name Arsaces, and suppose the revolted founder of the monarchy to have defeated Callinicus and ruled for many years afterwards. The confusion probably arises from the fact that every King of Parthia bore, besides his particular name, the general one of Arsaces, just as the Kings of Egypt bore the name Ptolemæus, and the Emperors of Rome the name Cæsar. Most of the Parthian Kings are usually spoken of by writers as Arsaces or "the Parthian," and it can scarcely be wondered that this fact has led to some of them being confused together or entirely overlooked. It is probable that Tiridates was the first to adopt the designation "Great King," while the title "King of Kings" was not assumed until after the victories of Mithradates I. Both these titles have a historic meaning. They show that the Arsacidæ claimed to succeed to that lordship which the successors of Cyrus had enjoyed, and to be the legitimate inheritors of the traditions of the great Asiatic monarchies. But the terms have also a simple and descriptive application. The Arsacid was in fact, not in word only, the master of a number of under-kings or satraps, each of whom was almost supreme in his own territory, and as compared with these little rulers, he might well be termed Great.

Tiridates was succeeded by his son, whom Justin calls Arsaces only, but who is named in the epitome of Trogus Pompeius, Artabanus. This monarch was called upon to contend with an even more dangerous antagonist than Callinicus, Antiochus the Great of Syria, at a time

1 Syncellus, Chron. p. 284. 2 Strabo, xi. 8,

8. 3 Posidonius ap. Athen. Deipn. iv. p. 153a. • Justin, xli. 5. 5 Syncellus, 284B.