The new Iran was far different from the old one. The term ‘Parthian’ is derived from Parthava - the name of an Achaemenian province situated just southeast of the Caspian Sea. Its inhabitants were Iranians, by virtue of the language they spoke. To the north, and vaguely related as Indo-European speakers, were the Dahae, one of many Scythian tribes. One of these tribal figures, a certain Arsaces, immigrated into Parthava and adopted the local Parthian culture and dialect.
He schemed successfully to become the local ruler. The dynasty he founded is rightly called ‘Arsacid’ after his name. Western writers invariably call it ‘Parthian.’ The first Arsacid (Parthian) kingdom emerged around the middle of the third century BC.
For this early moment in the state’s life, we have the archaeological record of Nisa, in today’s Turkmenistan. Here we see the perpetuation of the now long-established principle of the king residing in an exclusive imperial city where entry by outsiders was restricted. As such, the site of Old Nisa housed two monumental halls, ceremonial shrines. A hoard of ostraca written in Aramaic script but representing the local dialect is the earliest testimony to the Parthian language. The hoard of 60 elaborately carved rhytons, made of ivory tusks, is also vital evidence of strong Hellenistic artistic trends prevalent in Parthia at this time.
Some modest territorial gains were made initially at the expense of neighboring states, but for three-quarters of a century Parthia was largely confined to the area south and east of the Caspian. Archaeologists have identified the site of Shahr-i-Qumis in northeastern Iran as the location of the second Parthian capital, Hekatompylos. This site features as one of the places designated by the travel itinerary compiler Isidore of Charax as one of the so-called ‘Parthian Stations’ along the great Asian highway. Isidore’s catalog is an indication that transcontinental trade between the Mediterranean and Indian and China was becoming increasingly important to the economies of the states lying in between. Interestingly, archaeological investigations at another hypothetical Parthian station - Kangavar, in western Iran - have proven that the monumental remains actually date from later Sasanian times.
The Parthian State
A most dramatic expansion of Parthian territory occurred under King Mithridates I beginning after 170 BC. Land was seized right across the plateau of Iran, including the westernmost highland province of Media. The sudden increase in Parthian territory culminated in the 141 BC capture of the Seleucid capital city of Seleucia-on-Tigris, in Mesopotamia. Extension of Parthian authority is well attested in Mithri-dates’ overstriking of the coin issues of the previously independent state of Characene at the head of the Persian Gulf. The city of Charax, founded like many others in the fourth century in the aftermath of the Macedonian conquest of Asia, served as an entrepot for trade goods arriving from the east. From 73 AD, termination of the independent coin issues of Char-acene reflects how the state was subsumed into the
Parthian one. From excavations at Seleucia-on-Tigris, in central Iraq, one can document the initial impact of Macedonian conquest and promulgation of Greek standards. Parthian coins were struck using the Greek model of silver tetradrachm and drachm, reflecting a deliberate government policy to accommodate Macedonian settlers in the new Persian state. However, one can also document how Greek norms gradually morphed into more local versions.
Nineteenth century scholarship was wont to call this a ‘‘debased, orientalizing’’ trend. One should see it rather as resurgence of native traits. In art, a person’s status, expressed in the clothes they wore, was more important than a perfect body. At Seleucia, in house construction, builders abandoned the Greek way of constructing a post-and-beam roof, replacing it with an arched vault - a logical solution to the scarcity of quality wooden beams. Vaulted halls became a cultural identity marker for centuries of subsequent architectural construction in this region. At the site of Ashur, also in central Iraq, archaeologists have documented continuity of traditions going back to Assyrian times, albeit expressed in the medium of the now current now Parthian architectural mode. In southern Iraq, at the ancient site of Uruk, as well as at Nippur, monumental structures were sometimes built complying with Greek standards, but increasingly reflecting the vitality of indigenous traditions.
Seleucid rallies were made to regain lost territory, but mostly to no avail. Like his namesake, Mithridates II continued to consolidate and expand Parthian holdings after 123 BC. His claiming of the honorific title ‘king of kings’ suitably illustrates Parthian aspirations at this time. However, westerly expansion brought the Parthians inexorably into conflict with the Romans. The zone of confrontation lay generally along the course of the Euphrates. The former Seleucid frontier city of Dura Europos fell into Parthian hands around 113 BC, only to be taken in turn by the Romans in AD 115. The overall basis of the struggle stemmed from Rome’s perceived need for defense of foreign interests by eliminating hostile elements along her frontiers. This meant that a successful combat along a frontier inevitably implied annexation of that territory and thereby the potential for new confrontation further abroad. Gradually the Romans were drawn further and further east through Anatolia until they confronted Parthia.
In addition to expansion through frontier defense, Roman confrontations with Parthia were also instigated through ambitious campaigns mounted by ex officio government agents seeking personal fortunes. The explosive potential of such a mission is well illustrated by ex-consul Crassus’ Syrian campaign of 53 BC. It was an ill-advised attempt to corner the market in luxury shipments from the East. Lightarmed Parthian cavalry easily outmaneuvered Roman foot soldiers marching across the open Syrian plains. Crassus ultimately lost his life. Parthian cavalry tactics involved discharging the notorious ‘Parthian shot’. Arrows were discharged at full gallop toward the enemy. But before close contact was made, the rider wheeled around and turned in the saddle to fire arrows backward at the enemy line. Defeat, and the capture of legionary standards, haunted the Romans for a generation until Emperor Augustus negotiated terms for their return, in 20 BC.
Parthian Decline
Notwithstanding Parthian cavalry brilliance, the state was poorly prepared to take advantage of military success. Suren, commander of the forces that annihilated Crassus, was murdered out of perception that he was a danger to the king. Other potential contenders were also eliminated. Parthia’s territorial gains in Syria were gradually diminished through inept government. The Parthians lacked the bureaucratic machinery that ran the Achaemenian state. One may suggest that this kind of imperial organization did not appeal to the Parthians, and that a battle was to be won for its spoils and the challenge of fighting, nothing more.
More so than the Achaemenians, the Parthian state was forced to confront tribal incursions on the northeastern frontier. We may assume that the root cause of the attempted incursions reflects the same impetus that had caused Arsaces himself and his family to infiltrate into Iran two centuries earlier. Simply said, a worsening ecological situation brought about by population growth and environmental degradation may have prompted tribes to look for new pastureland. In addition, the developed conditions of the Iranian countryside, following centuries of investment in infrastructure, may have presented an enticing prospect for plunder.
As evidence of a lack of strong centralized state bureaucracy, we have the archaeological record of several sites. In tangible archaeological remains, we can see that the Parthian state did not have a rigid obsession with standardization. Rather, there are strong regional characteristics. Exemplifying this principle is the region of Elymais in southwestern Iran. The area is known for its distinctive rock reliefs, a coinage that speaks of autonomy within the Parthian state. From our own perspective and attitudes toward successful government, we may judge this as weakness. One may also judge it as a maturity whereby Parthian governors were not obsessed with imposing rigid rules on diverse peoples. Whatever the judgment, one has to acknowledge that the Parthian state did survive for over 400 years, a not inconsiderable achievement.
Independent States
Two sites exemplify lack of strong bureaucratic control over the central reaches of traditional Iranian territory at this time. The first is the independent Arab state of Hatra in northern Mesopotamia, where its defensive walls resisted several attempts to breach them, most notably by the Roman Emperor Trajan in AD 117. In the heart of the roughly circular city lay a complex of shrines where some of the architectural features are strictly Hellenistic in style, though the predominant element in both structural form and votive statuary is decidedly Parthian. Notwithstanding its Arab society and independent status, Hatra is often used extensively to define first century AD Parthian.
The archaeological site of Qal‘eh-i-Yazdigird also epitomizes independence within the Parthian realm. The site is a formidable fortress of the second century AD overlooking the so-called Zagros Gates pass between the Iranian plateau and the Mesopotamian plains. Containing a lavishly decorated palace, the fortress is best explained as a warlord’s stronghold. Wealth came from the extraction of tolls from caravan traffic plying the great Asian highway (later dubbed the Silk Road). Persian legends relating how the Sasanian dynasty that replaced the Parthians faced a major challenge in subduing this part of Iran attest well to the idea of warlords like this in the Zagros.
We get some measure of the weaknesses and rivalries surrounding the Parthian throne from coins. Around 78 AD, two kings (both claiming the title ‘king of kings’) issued identically struck silver tetra-drachms in the capital, but each with their own distinctive portrait and name on the coins. With no other indications of expressed victory, rather than representing civil war, the arrangement seems to reflect a degree of power sharing. Other issues of coins, such as Pacorus’ victory tetradrachm of AD 82, definitively underlines contest for the throne of Parthian Iran. The municipal bronze coins also provide priceless insight into how the state was managed. Initially, when the Parthian authorities began to take over affairs of government from the Seleucids, cities were awarded autonomy, largely due to the presence of large numbers of Macedonian settlers. Toward the end of the Parthian era, the municipal issues of coins disappear, to be replaced by bronzes stamped with the royal moniker.
In addition to insight that coins give us about Parthian political structure, evidence of their circulation helps define both state organization and the dynamics of trade. The tetradrachm circulated only in Mesopotamia, whereas the drachm (smaller in size, but higher in silver content) was the Iranian highland’s currency. The phenomenon underlines again lack of strong central authority. Although it lasted almost 400 years, collapse of the Parthian state through fragmentation was inevitable.
World History
