# A Political History of Parthia/Sources

SOURCES
THE peculiarity of the source material for a history of Parthia lies not in its scarcity but in the wide extent to which it is scattered through documents of much diversified character. Unfortunately none of the numerous histories of the country written in antiquity has survived, and we must therefore piece together the story from casual notices and from ancient authors who in their narrative occasionally touched upon some phase of Parthian history. By far the largest body of source material is in the classical writers, particularly those who dealt with military affairs and those who were themselves born in the Orient. To these may be added inscriptions from Greece, Italy, and the Near East as well as a certain number of parchments. Those authors who wrote in Armenian, Syriac, and Arabic, though all later than the Parthian period, add some information not otherwise available. But the fact that the evidence is to an overwhelming extent given by natives of or sympathizers with countries hostile to Parthia makes it impossible to present the picture wholly from the Parthian viewpoint.
Evidence from the Orient is scanty but of the utmost importance. Besides the late writers mentioned above, most of whom suffered from lack of good ​sources on which to draw, we have the contemporary cuneiform tablets. These, though they are but imperfectly and incompletely published, provide us with occasional glimpses of the political scene from the eastern side. Documents in Pahlavi, the official language of the Parthians, are so scarce as to be negligible. The extensive and well published Parthian coinage is the basis on which any chronology of the rulers must rest.
For the eastern frontier of the empire the Chinese sources provide us with accurate and, for certain periods, fairly complete information. On the Indian frontier we must again depend upon coins and inscriptions, the uncertain dating of which makes their use peculiarly difficult.
An extended criticism of the classical sources is both impossible and unnecessary here. A good brief statement on the general value of the more important writers and their sources may be found in the Cambridge Ancient History, Volumes IX–XI, together with additional bibliography of more detailed criticisms. The brief remarks that follow will be confined to the value and problems of the sources only in so far as they relate to Parthian history.
By far the most difficult period is that prior to the Parthian invasion of Mesopotamia in 141 b.c., for which the bulk of the information is far from contem­ porary, widely scattered, and small in quantity. We know that numbers of Parthians were in Syria as well ​as at Rome; hence the statements which classical writers make with regard to Parthian origins may have a basis in Parthian tradition. In any case we cannot profitably abandon all the traditional history of this early period as legendary merely because we are unable to check its accuracy in more than one source or because the sources themselves are much later in date. Such action, though perhaps based on better historical method, would leave the ancient historian small framework upon which to build in future years. The reader must bear in mind the sources from which the narrative for these early years is drawn and evaluate it accordingly.
The most important single source for this early period is Justin's epitome of Trogus Pompeius' history. This work suffers from the combined errors of two persons, plus the copyists' mistakes, but some of the severe criticism leveled at it comes from readers who are prone to forget that it is an epitome. At many points it is so abridged that, without the necessary background, compression appears as error. In a number of cases the prologues of the original work supply additional facts and correct or make clear the epitome.
For the history before 141 b.c. the other classical sources consist largely of scattered references in such generally reliable writers as Strabo, Arrian, and Polybius, most of whom are not contemporary with events described but can in general be trusted. The prob​lem with such material is often one of arrangement in chronological order or of placement in the proper position in the narrative.
From the time of Crassus onward classical sources are extensive, though, for years when no military activity aroused interest, large gaps appear. The history of Cassius Dio Cocceianus covered the period from the first contacts with Rome to the downfall of the empire. The work is invaluable, since it contains much not found elsewhere; but its accuracy must often be questioned, and portions of it are very fragmentary. The arrangement of these fragments, generally quotations from other writers, is not yet entirely satisfactory. In many cases they are probably much abridged—a condition which leads to still further complications. For the period of the downfall of the empire, with which he was contemporary, the very brief statements of Dio have unusual value. The information furnished by Plutarch in his Lives, especially those of Crassus and Antony, is based on first-rate sources. With allowance for such patriotic biases as the attempts of the military to find an excuse for the defeat of Crassus, this biographer provides us with some of our most extensive connected narratives in Parthian history.
In the letters which Cicero wrote to his friends and in his dispatches to the Senate during his governorship of Cilicia we find the only connected day-by-day account which has come down to us of any phase of ​Parthian history. This account is contemporary, and when it deviates from strict fact because of personal bias the change is fairly evident. Of other classical sources, among the most valuable for Parthian history are the works of the Jew Josephus. Time after time from numismatic or written sources Josephus can be proved correct, even against such factually accurate writers as Tacitus. Passages in Josephus containing apparent errors can often be understood when considered as brief resumes which omit much not directly connected with the main thread of the narrative. Josephus utilized the works of another oriental, Nicolaus of Damascus; his first edition of the Jewish War was prepared for Jews living under the Parthian empire. Babylonian Jews were passing to and fro across the frontiers, and Josephus was probably able to correct and supplement his sources from them. Possibly the story of Anilaeus and Asinaeus represents such firsthand information.
The brief notices concerning Parthia in Velleius Paterculus have an especial value, since he was with Gaius in the east. In the Stratagems of Frontinus there are several detailed references to military events of the period from around 50 b.c. to a.d. 50, based on excellent and extensive accounts. The difficulty in dealing with these is one common to all such isolated bits of information, namely that of placing them in the narrative.
​For a long section of Parthian history, particularly the campaign of Corbulo, Tacitus is almost the sole source. His knowledge of eastern affairs was fairly accurate, but his knowledge of eastern geography was not. These facts and his personal biases, which must often be taken into account, make us long for additional checks upon our source. In the long run, however, the picture which we secure is probably substantially correct.
Since the internal condition of Parthia at the time when Vardanes had been ruling "two years and eight months," as described in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana, fits the facts as far as we know them, it seems unfair to condemn this whole work as unhistorical. These very figures speak for the accuracy of some details, since they are numbers not usually utilized in fictitious accounts. But the question of how much may be employed with safety remains a difficult one. Of a somewhat similar nature are the Sibylline Oracles, which among much else contain a certain amount of historical data. When, however, it is impossible to tell with any certainty to what individuals or events or period the information pertains, speculation along these lines would seem of little real value. The best one can do is to point out the existence of the material and its most probable place in the general narrative. Certain books seem a unity, free from much or any later interpolation, and these prove extremely useful.
​Of all the Roman campaigns against the Parthians, that under the command of the co-emperor Lucius Verus probably presents the greatest difficulties. The essayist Lucian, who had before him not only the bad but also the good histories of the war, has scattered through his essays numerous references to events of the campaign, almost all from writers now lost. The correspondence of Fronto, tutor of the Roman emperors, contains several passages of value, especially in the Principia historiae and in letters from Lucius at the front. Some of this material was not available for the standard edition of Naber, but as a result of further work by Hauler on the palimpsest the Loeb edition by Haines is much more complete. If the campaign of Verus can be worked out more fully than has been done here, it will probably be through further study of the place names and routes involved and by comparison with the usual form of Roman campaign against Parthia, which since the death of Caesar had become fairly well standardized.
Possibly when our knowledge of Parthia in the time of Trajan is much further advanced, we shall be able to untangle the confused account of Malalas and make use of such facts as are present. Now only a small part of the work can be utilized safely.
Concerning other sources not heretofore mentioned, such as Appian, Herodian, those of the Livy tradition, Florus, Orosius, and Rufus Festus, as well as the biographers Suetonius and the "Scriptores," the ​writer has little to add beyond the general estimate of classical scholars.
There were in existence in antiquity various histories of Parthia, some written by men of unquestioned ability. The Parthian histories of Arrian and of Apollodorus of Artemita would have answered many questions, and those of Asinius Quadratus and Quintus Dellius might have been nearly as useful. According to the estimate of Lucian, the work of Crepereius Calpurnianus of Pompeiopolis would have been of little value. Fragments of Quadratus and Arrian exist, the latter of particular value in the campaign of Trajan provided we can place them in the narrative.
The bulk of the inscriptional evidence pertains to Roman military affairs, but exceptions are note­ worthy. There are two Parthian inscriptions in Greek on the Parthian reliefs at Behistun. From Susa in Iran come various important inscriptions, especially a letter of Artabanus III to the city. Dura-Europus on the Euphrates has provided a valuable series, particularly graffiti, though many of the latter relate to the military. The last-named site has also fur­ nished an amazing series of parchments, of primary importance for the cultural history of the area.
The question of the value of the Armenian sources for Parthian history is a perplexing one. There is much information not known from other sources in such writers as Moses of Chorene, but many of the ​statements which can be checked are found to be in error. Whole sections of the Armenian narratives seem to bear no relation to known facts, and the tradition which they were following is apparently not a direct one. We have seldom cited these sources, both because it would be unsafe to follow their unsupported statements and because there was no point in adding them only where other and better authorities could be quoted. Further detailed study by some scholar well grounded in historical method and equipped with the necessary linguistic training to handle the original manuscripts may well yield important new facts.
Little information of a political character regarding the Parthians is given by Arabic writers; they seem to have possessed neither sources nor reliable tradition going back this far. Some details of the downfall of the empire are preserved by the Arab historians, and among stories in the literature there are mentioned titles and remnants of the political organization of the early Sasanian state which almost certainly descend from its predecessors. On the other hand the Syriac writers had excellent sources. Very probably these included histories of the early Christian bishoprics along with marginal notes on such manuscripts. In addition the Syriac documents possess the advantage of having originated under Parthian rule in the heart of the western empire. The Talmud supplements the fragmentary classical refer​ences to Jewish-Parthian relations and makes the actions of the pro-Parthian party among the Jews much clearer.
Though most of the cuneiform sources are both fragmentary and scattered, many are contemporary and therefore of especial value. Here a word of warning is necessary: A number of the astronomical tables found on the tablets are not derived from observation, but are calculated, while others are merely copies of earlier tablets. Tablets of these types lose part of their value as sources; moreover, they cannot be considered as strictly contemporary. It must also not be forgotten that the contemporaneousness of a document does not guarantee the truth of the statements therein. In the case of many cuneiform tablets their fragmentary nature makes much interpretation necessary, and this work is always subject to revision. In the cuneiform field lies the greatest possibility of securing further information not only by the discovery of new documents but also by the publication of those now known to be in museums. The double dating of the tablets provides us with definite chronological evidence, but unfortunately the use of the throne name Arsaces to some extent negates their value for historical purposes. When on rare occasions a king is mentioned by his personal name, he is usually otherwise unknown; thus new problems are raised rather than old ones solved by the date lines. For the calculation of such dates it is highly advisable to make ​use of a table, as the frequent errors in published works prove. Thus the second year of the Seleucid era in Babylonia, if obtained by subtraction, is 311/10 minus 2, that is, 309/8. But actually, as one can see in this case by inspection, the second year is 310/9. The error is not apparent with larger figures. It automatically adjusts itself after the beginning of the Christian era, since 311 s.e. is not year 0 but 1 b.c., while 312 s.e. is a.d. 1.
Documents in Arsacid Pahlavi are so scarce that those which exist present many difficulties to translators. Besides a few inscriptions on coins, the single Pahlavi parchment from Avroman in Kurdistan remains the most important item of this character among the sources.
Dated Parthian coinage began shortly after the Parthians entered Mesopotamia, and it continued to increase in volume for some years. This has been and must remain the primary basis for Parthian chronology. Many of the coins, in addition to the year date in the Babylonian Seleucid era, bear also the month of issue, which in times of disturbance is very useful to the historian. Unfortunately relatively few of these coins bear the king's name, and when they do we may assume that two or more men were contending for the throne. The remainder of the coins must, by means of the portraits on the obverses, or on stylistic grounds, be assigned to rulers known from written sources. The task is difficult; but the work of ​Gardner, Wroth, and more recently McDowell has been very successful.
If the proveniences of the coins were known, assignment to the various rulers would be greatly facilitated. Unfortunately few of the coins come from excavations, and collections seldom possess records of provenience. The studies of McDowell on coins from the Iranian plateau (still to be published) and on the large amount of numismatic material from Seleucia on the Tigris will help to alleviate this difficulty.
While the writer must deal with the Chinese sources in translation only, the major problem connected with them appears clear. Though much has been done with the identification of personal and place names, many still remain uncertain quantities. Further studies in early Chinese onomatology will increase the certainty and number of identifications. On the Indian frontier numismatics again plays an important part, but here unfortunately there is less historical information to assist in the task of assigning the coins. Furthermore, the inscriptions, though dated, create as many problems as they solve, since in some cases the beginnings of the eras by which they are dated cannot be fixed. Excavations, especially that of Marshall at Taxila, promise to provide the solution to many difficulties on the eastern frontier.