Hashem Kazemi; Mostafa Dehpahlavan
Abstract
The beginning of the Parthian dynasty and the identity of Arsaces I as the head of this dynasty is one of the most mysterious parts of Parthian history. Based on the analysis of the ...
Read More
The beginning of the Parthian dynasty and the identity of Arsaces I as the head of this dynasty is one of the most mysterious parts of Parthian history. Based on the analysis of the written sources regarding the identity of Arsaces, these sources can be divided into two different historiographical traditions: one by Apollodorus and his followers Justin and Strabo, and the other by Arrian and his followers (Photius, Zosimus, Syncellus, Dio). Meanwhile, a narrative has been more welcomed among Parthian history and archeology researchers. According to this narrative, Arsaces was a Scythian who was the head of the Aparni tribe of the Dahae union. Then, based on this version of the origin of the Parthians, in the middle of the 3rd century BC, Arsaces took advantage of the confusion of the Seleucid empire in the west and together with the Aparni, captured the Seleucid state of Parthia and and provided the foundation for the formation of the Parthian Empire. The main reference and the most effective spreader of the concept of nomadic and Scythian Parthians is Strabo. He was inspired by the older Hellenistic historians in understanding the origin of the Parthians, however, none of them lived before the second century BC. In this research, the researchers based on archaeological evidence and analysis of written sources, say that the Arrian historiography tradition and his followers based on the fact that Arsaces was a native Parthian are closer to the political and social realities of the Parthian period, and we argue that Arsaces I was never able to create a kingdom comparable to the Seleucid Empire, he just managed a tributary state under the rule of the Seleucids. The establishment of the Parthian kingdom based on local and Parthian elements could have taken place only after the reign of Antiochus III (223/2-187b.c). In fact, there is no direct or indirect evidence for the Parthian Empire in Iran in the 3rd century b.c. If the early Parthian kingdom had essentially a territorial foundation, it could not have been anything more than a regional power.
