the indo-parthian frontier-robert h. mcdowell

7/26/2019 The Indo-parthian Frontier-robert h. Mcdowell

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-indo-parthian-frontier-robert-h-mcdowell 1/21

Volume

XLIV] ly,

I939

[Number

4

X t e r it a n S o r t f c a l t b t e

THE

INDO-PARTHIAN

FRONTIER

A

STUDY

IN

POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY

THE

purpose of this article is to employ the literary

and

numismatic

evidence to define more accurately and clearly

than has

hitherto

been

done the successive boundaries of the political

units

which

oc-

cupied the area east of Parthia and between the Hindu Kush Mountains

and the Indus valley from the second century B.C. to the second century

A.D.1

The

principal Greek and Roman

sources

for

the

geography

of the

area during that period are Strabo, Pliny, Arrian, and Ptolemy, as well

as

Isidor

of Charax and the anonymous author of the Periplus of

the

Erythrean Sea. The major units which they recognize represent in both

name

and outline a fusion of the Achemenid organization with

that

installed

by Alexander the Great. Apparently

the

short-lived

Maurya

Empire which succeeded Alexander did little to change

this

organiza-

tion,

and

the

coinages of the subsequent Yavana and Saka kingdoms

reflect the persistenceof these same nuclei of power. Still later, Chinese

envoys

and

Arab geographers down to the Middle Ages

describe the

political

and

commercial centers of this area in terms which for the

most

part identify them as essentially the units inherited or organized

by

Alexander.

In the Indus basin Alexander

left five principal political units. In

the

south

the

territory

from

the junction of the Punjab rivers with the

Indus as far as the sea, in general comprising Sind and the delta, fell

within

the

satrapy

of Pithon. In the north

the client kingdom of

Abhisares

occupied

lower Kashmir and the

Indus

valley above the

Punjab.

East of the

Jhelum River,

in

eastern

Punjab, lay the kingdom

of Poros.

The

satrapy

of

Philip

was

made

up

of

western

Punjab,

the

1

In

other studies

I

hope

to

discuss the mint areas of

ParthianIran, basing my con-

clusions

on

evidence

gathered

in Iran

during

I935

as

a

fellow

of

the

John Simon

Guggenheim

Memorial Foundation; the

nomad

invasions

of

northeastern Iran, with a

review of the literature on the subjectof the Yueh-chi and the Sakai; and the political

history

of Parthian

Iran in

terms

of

geographical

an(l

economic

factors.

78I

This content downloaded from 62.204.192.85 on Thu, 1 Jan 2015 07:06:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





782

Robebrt

H.

McDoTvell

-A

:

B

C

I

D

E

I

G

R

I_

I

\

*&X0AMARKAID

2~~~~GLH

Ak

M~~~~~~BM

'1V

I

I3NAA

Abitso+/

IN3B

M4ARACNA

Ab-i-Istada

kE

H

4

Ak-su

iver.HO aRlatWar

(city)

Aracho6ia

.E-G,

t

Areia.BC5

Dragina

.

B_6_

_

aAk Gandh_a

Banjawayect)D Ghzi(ct)F

B1hr

(ity

.

C Ghoban

Rive

.

F2

Bks

ie

... ... ....

DolantPassE

hr

(city)

C6........ . .......

Carmhania.A7

ie

Gi.....E7Frishk

(city)

..................B

Cohariar

(city)

F4

I......homandiver

F6G

Bol~Dan Ps .............Ghr(ityA.....C

Camna.....

,8...Grsk(iy. ..

7

Charikar

(city)

.................

F4 Gumal

Rivr

..........

............

F6-G







The

Indo-Parthian

Frontier

783

districts

of

Rawal

Pindi

east of

the

Indus

and

Peshawar

on the

west

bank,

which

together

omprised

Gandhara,

ndthe

valley

of theKabul

Riverbelow the KunarRiver.Adjoiningon the northlay the satrapy

of

Nikanor,

made up

of

the

Kunar

and Swat

river

valleys with an

extension

eastward

o an

undefinedborder

with

Gandhara;

his

unit

represents

he area

personally raversed

nd

conquered

by

Alexander

upon

his

entryinto

India,

and too little

attentionhas

been

paid

to

its

wealth,

high

culture, nd the

strategic

mportance

f

this

alternate

oute

from Kabul

Cityto the Indus.2

Within a veryshortperiodafter heirestablishmenthekingdomof

Eastern

Punjab

the

kingdom

of

Poros)

and

Gandhara

the

satrapy

f

Philip) absorbedhe otherthreeunits.

Though

the latter

retained heir

identities

as

important

nuclei

throughout

he

succeeding

periods,

East-

2

For

this

campaign

of

Alexander see

Arrian,

Anabasis,

IV, 23-28. The

route

has

been

described

by

Sir Thomas

Holdich

(The

Gates

of

India

[London,

1910],

pp. IOO-IOi,

II3,

I29)

as

the oldest

and

probably

the

best trodden

between

Kabul

and

the

Punjab;

he points

also

to its

strategic

importance

and

to

the

high

culture of

the

Swat

valley.

For the

satrapies

see E.

R.

Bevan,

"Alexander the

Great",

Cambridge

History

of

India,

I

(New

York, 1922),

351-52.

Harud

River ..................

B5-A7

Oxus

River

.............

H3-Bi

Helmand River

.........

E5-B7

P'ak-tat:

district of

Balkh.

Herat

(city)

......

B5

Pamirs

............

HI2,

3

Herat River

.....

B5-A4

Panjhir

River

............

F4

Hindu

Kush

Mountains

...-.-.B-G4, 5

Paropamisadae

C-F5

Hunza

(city)

.........1..

I3

Parthia

A4,

5

Hyrcania

... .I, 2

Peshawar

(city)

..................

G5

Indian

Ocean.

A-Ei2

Punch

River.

I

Indus River ............. I3-E12 Punjab (East) ..... .... H16,7

Jelalabad

(city)

.........

.

..

G5

Punjab

(Southwest)

.........

GH7, 8

Jhelum

River.

15-H7

Quetta

(city)

.E8

Kabul

River

.....

.....

FGs

Rawal

Pindi

(city).

H

Kafiristan

... ...............

G4

Samarkand

(city)

............

EI

Kalat

(city)

....E...........

9

Seistan

.....................

A-C8,

9

Kandahar

(city).D7

...........

Shibar

Pass

............

Es

Kashmir

..........................

I5

Sind

.F.......

FGio,

i i

Ke-pin:

Gandhara;

Kingdom

of

the

Sogdiana

.......

i.... D-F2,

3

House

of Eucratides. Swat

River

...

H4-5

Ko-hu:

Paropamisadae;

Arab

King-

Tarim

Basin

.

...II,

2

dom of Bamian.

T'ien-tok:

Eastern

Punjab;

Kingdom

Kunar

River

........

..

H3-G5

of the

House of

Euthydemus.

Kunduz

River

........

F4-3

Tiz

(city)

........

AiI

Lasbela

........................

DII

Tochi

River

.....................

G6

Makran

.................

BCI I

UniPs.............E

akra.BCiiUnai

Pass

..E

Margiana ...........

.......

B3,

4

Mula River

.Eg

Wakhan.Hv

..........

..

3

Multan

(city)

.

...........

H8

a...

kh

8

Washer

iv.Gi-F3

Murghab

River

..

D-B4

Yueh-chi

territory

just

prior

to.rise

of

Muruchak

(city)

.

.

c4 the

Kushana dynasty:

Pamirs,

Obeh

(city)

..

Cs

Wakhan,

Upper

Chitral,

Badak-

0-ik-san-li: Arachosia,includingSouth- shan, and the Kunduz River valley.

western

Punjab;

Kingdom of

Vonones

Zarangiana

...

.....

B7

and

of

Soter

Megas.

Zaranj

(city)

...

.....

A7







784

Robert

H.

McDowell

ern

Punjaband

Gandhara tand out as paramount, nd this

relation-

ship can be traced

with little interruption

rom the Achemenid

period

to the Middle Ages.

On

the

west between

the Hindu Kush

and the

Indian

Ocean

the

Greek and Romansourcesrecognizethree

units as bordering

ndia:

the Paropamisadae,

rachosia, nd Gedrosia.North

of

these

units

and

of the Hindu Kush

lay Bactria,extending

east only to

the Kunduz

River

valley,which

was considered sourceof the Oxus; Sogdiana,

x-

tendingsouth to include

all of Badakshan; nd, northeast f

Sogdiana,

the countryof the

highlandSakai,that

is, Ferghana, he Pamirs,and

the watershedbetweenthe Indus and Tarim basins.3 nsofaras they

can be checked, he earlier ourcesagree

with Ptolemy n locating

the

northwesternorner

f Indiaat the head

of the

Panjhir

valley, ust south

of

the headwaters

f the eastern ributary

f the Kunduz. This places

within India all of

the Kunarbasinand

the lower Kabul valley,

rom

a point betweenKabuland Jelalabad. trabo

and Pliny,however,

ocate

the Indian rontier

n the Kabulvalleyratherbelow Jelalabad.4

great

deal of errorhas crept into our interpretationf the geographyand

historyof the Kabul

valley hrougha rather eneral ailure o

appreciate

the sense in which

the Hellenistic

writersused the nameKophen.

It

does not represent

he length of the KabulRiverof our day

but rather

theunited streamof the Kabuland the

Kunarriversbelow

Jelalabad.5

The districtof Kabul,

the Kabulistan

f the early Arab geographers,

from above

Jelalabad

o the Ghorband alley

was attached

o,

but

not

an integralpartof, the Paropamisadae.n all periods t appearsas a

passageway

ather

han as

a centerof power.

References o

the Paropamisadae

n

our earlier

Westernsources

are

3Strabo,XV,

2,

9; Ptolemy,Geographia,

I, II-13, I8-2I, and

mapsnos. 7,

9-10.

I

have used the edition of Ptolemy prepared by

Edward Luther

Stevenson (New York,

I932) and have benefited from the

commentary of Andre

Berthelot, L'Asie ancienne

centrale et sud-orientale,

d'apres PtolMme'eParis, 1930).

4

Strabo, XI, 8,

9;

Pliny,

Natural

History,

VI,

2I,

6-8.

5 Arrian, Anab., IV,

22,

5-7. Coming from Bactria on his way to India Alexander

arrived at

Alexandreia,

near Charikar. While

there he appointed Turiaspes satrap of

"the

country of the Paropamisadaeand of the

rest as far as to the

river Kophen". From

Alexandreia he proceeded

to

Nikaia, which is

generally identified as

Kabul City.

From

Nikaia he "advanced

oward the Kophen", at the

same time sending heralds to the Indian

princes of the Indus

ordering

them to

come to

meet him. "Here he divided the army";

this

can apply only to his

point

of

contact

with

the princes on the Kophen, which must

have been some distance

below Kabul. It

is clear that the name

Kophen cannot be

applied

to

any

stream

much

above

the

junction

of

the Kunar

(the

Choes

of

Arrian

and the Koa

of Ptolemy) with the Kabul, and so this junction seems to provide the basis for a new

name.

There

are

repeated

instancesin this same area of the

application

of a new

name

to

the

union of two

streams.







T7he

ndo-Parthian

Frontier 785

vague,

indicatinglittle

more than

that

it includedthe head

of the

Kabul

valley,but they

do not permit

an assumption

hat

it

extended

eastof the valley

to include

partsof Kafiristan.

tolemy

ncludes

n it

the eastern imits of the satrapyof Turiaspes,hat is, the Ghorband,

Panjhir,

and

Kabul City districts.-Westward

t included

Bamian

and

the

Herat Rivervalley

down to

about

midway

betweenDaolatyar

nd

Obeh,

where it

bordered n Arei.

Becauseof

the

paucity

of

reference

in

the Hellenistic

iterature,present-day

istorians

have failed to see

in it

a politicalcenterof

great significance.

Bamian,

however,

s recog-

nizedas one of

the great

Buddhist enters

of the

Middle

East. As late

as the nineteenth enturywhathas been described s the best and the

most

generally

used route

from the

Oxus to

Kabul

passed

through

Bamian

and thenceeither

by the

easy

Shibar

Pass

into the Ghorband

valleyor south

into the

upperHelmand

River

valley

and so, by

the

Unai Pass, to

Kabul.

The earlyArab geographers

escribedanother

route

from

the

Oxus through

Bamian

o Ghazni

and thence

southto

the greatport

of Tiz in

Makran,or Gedrosia.

t

appears,ndeed,

that

the only route known to the ArabsbetweenHeratand Kabulpassed

through

Bamian.Other

routes,practicable

or

both

commerce nd war,

connectedBamian

hrough

heHerat

and Farah

river

valleys

with

the

Ghur

country

and

Seistan.It was

this

strategicposition

that led

the

Arabs

to call

Bamian"the

trade port

of

Khorasan

and the treasure

house

of

Sind

[the India

of the Arabs]."

Bamian

City

was variously

escribed s

half the size of

and as

large

as

Balkh tself,andthe kingdom ncludedmany

arge

citiesscatteredver

centralAfghanistan

rom

the Kabul valley

to the

borders

of Herat.

Besides ts commercial

mportance

nd thefertility

of its valleys,

t was

said to possessmportant

old and

silvermines.The

cultural

affiliations

of

Bamian with India

were remarked

n the MiddleAges,

and this

traditionhas

persisted nto

moderntimes.

The military

mportance

f

the Bamian

route is attestedby

its repeated

use

during the Afghan

civil

wars,by

the passageof Nadir

Shah

with an

army thatincluded

artillery,

nd

by the

recorded onquests

of Bamian

by the Khwarzim

shahs

and

the

Mongols.

For our present

purposes

he

value of these

Arab records

ies in the evidence hat the

kingdom

of Bamianof the

early

Middle

Ages

correspondedlosely

with

the

limits of

the Paro-

pamisadae

escribed

yPtolemy,

and

at times

t extended o

the eastern

limitsof

the

satrapy f

this name.6

6 Ptolemy, VI, i8; Guy Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (Cambridge,

I905),

pp.

4I6-I8,

432;

Holdich,

pp.

2I7-I8,

259-68, 438;

cf. pp.

205,

211-24.

AM.

HIST.

REV.,

VOL.

XLIV.-54







786 Robert

H. McDowell

The Arachosia f Ptolemy omprisedhe

upper

and middle

Helmand

River valley, the districts

around Ghazni and

Lake

Ab-i-Istada,

nd

probably ncluded the passesof the Gumal and Tochi riversto the

Indus plain. The boundary

on this

easternside cannot

be

accurately

traced,but it appears

o

have extended o

the

plain.

The borderon

the

south,that is, with

Gedrosia, an only a little

to the

southof

the

lake,

which is

called

by Ptolemy

"the

Lake of

Arachosia".

he

Kandahar

district,

which is so commonly dentified

with

Arachosia

y present-day

writers,

s included

by Ptolemywithin the

borders

f Gedrosia.

Strabo,

Pliny, Arrian,and Isidor of Charaxconfirmin a general way this

concentrationof

Arachosia toward

Ghazni rather than

toward

Kandahar.

Further upport s

offeredby the sources

f the earlyIslamicperiod.

The

Kandahar

district,

alledby the ArabsRukhkhaj,with its

capital,

Banjaway, ormed

part of what they called

Sijistan.This unit repre-

sentedan expansion

of northernGedrosia,

he Sakastan f Isidor, or

Zarangiana nd Drangianawere included.Above Sijistan ay the Arab

Zabulistan,which comprisedhe highland

countryof the middle and

upperHelmandvalley,

the upperreachesof

the Kandahar ivers,and

the district f Ghazni,with which the name

Zabulistan as most closely

connected.North of

Zabulistan n the frontiers

of Bamian lay the

Arab Kabulistan.8

It is clearthat the Arachosia f our Greek

and Roman sourcesand

the Zabulistan f the early Arabs represent ssentially he same area

7

For

Arachosia see

Ptolemy, VI, 20.

Strabo

(XI, 8,

9)

and

Pliny (VI, 2I,

6-8),

in

a

series of

measured

distances

between

Alexandria of

Areia

(Herat) and

India,

ignore the

existence of any

center

near

Kandaharand

pass

from Prophthasia

of

Drangiana (Farah)

directly to

what they call

the

city of

Arachosia, and

both

sets of figures

(each

is correct

when

properly

interpreted)

locate this city

near Lake

Ab-i-Istada.If the

route

of Isidor is

properly

traced (Parthian

Stations,

edited by

Wilfrid H.

Schoff

[Philadelphia,

I914i,

sect.

i6- i9),

his

"metropolisof

Arachosia"

ies

north

of the

lake; the rest

of

Arachosia,

with

Ghazni as the center, lay outsidethe Parthianborder.Arrian(Anab., III,

25,

8; III, 28,

1)

shows

Alexander

arriving in

the

district of

Zarangiana

(Zaranj

on

the

Seistan

lake)

and

proceeding thence

"toward

Bactriaand against

Bessus,reducing

on

the

way the

Drangians

and

Gadrosians".

Drangiana

extended

east

from

Farah to

include

Girishk; Gedrosia

is

here shown

extendingnorth of

Kandahar.

8

Le Strange,

pp.

334, 344-49;

cf.

Holdich, pp.

136,

474,

5I2. Kandaharis

largely

ignored by

the

early

Arab

geographers, and

the important routes

left

it to one side.

The Bolan

Pass to

the

Indus does not

appear

to

have

been used in

antiquity,

and

the

Mula River

Pass was connected with

Kalat rather than

Kandahar.

The

idea of

a

great

natural

highway

of

ancient trade

and

migration

passing

between

Kandahar

and

the

Indus, which

has

been

accepted

as

historical,

is

largely

a

creation of

British

strategists

of

the

nineteenth

century.







The Indo-Parthian

Frontier

787

and

the same

center f

powerwithin he

area.

Both

groups

f sources

areveryvague

withrespect

o the eastern

order f the

area,

but

the

Arabs learly raspedhe significancef theGumaland Tochipasses

to the Indus,

which erved othGhazni

andthe

lake

country.

Ghazni

was

called

"the

port

of India",ndfrom t the great

Sultan

Mahmud

raided

ndia

and destroyed

he Arab

power

n Multan.The

strategic

position

f Ghazni n

relation

o both heOxusandthe

Indus uggests

that

the

Indian

ountry

outhof

Peshawar nd southeasto

Multan,

extreme outhwestern

unjab,

was

closely

elated

o Arachosia

roper

and,givena leadern Ghazni, ecame ependentpon t.

The eastern

rontiers

f

Gedrosia,he remaining

oliticalunit

bordering

ndiaon the west,

musthave

ncluded

hepresent istricts

of

Kandahar,

uetta,

Kalat, ndLasbela.

s in

the case

of Arachosia,

Ptolemy

hows

he eastern oundary

unning

lose o the

Indus

plain.

The characternd mportance

f Gedrosiaave

beenbadly

misjudged

throughasualnterpretation

f the accounts

ortraying

he sufferings

of theMacedonianrmyn thisregion.Arrian'sccounts explicitn

the

statementshat t

was hecoastwhich

was

desert nd hat

Alexander

deliberatelyhose

hemoredifficult

oute

n order

o maintain

ontact

with the

fleet.9The

early

Arab

sources

resent

more

detailed

nd

balanced

icture,

nd

his

receives

orroborationromaccountsy

more

recent ravelers.

he

Makran

f theArabsxtended

orth

rom hesea

only

o

Turan,which

orresponds

o theKalat

district;

n theeast, ike

the earlierGedrosia,

t

closelyapproachedhe Indusmouthandex-

tended n

thewest otheborders

f Carmania

r Kerman.

t possessed

many

fertile

valleys

n an

advancedtage

of

cultivation

nd

many

wealthy itiesnear he

coast

and in theinterior.

Commerce

as the

principal

ource f wealth:

y

seato the

greatportof Tiz,

thence

ver-

land o India;by caravanrom

Syria

andBagdad;

nd,as has

already

been

noted,

by caravanrom

Khorasan

nd theOxus

valley

by

wav

of Ghazni.Tiz replacedHormuzn the tenthcentury s theportof

Sijistan.

his picture f Makran,

r southern

Gedrosia,n the

Middle

Ages

s supported

y

numerousndextensive

ncient iteswhich

have

been

reported

y

travelersf the present

ay.

On the basisof evidence

as

opposed

o

surmisehe route

o andfrom ndia

by

wayof southern

Gedrosiamust be recognized

s one

of the most significant

f the

9

Anab.,

VI,

23-24.

Note

that

Alexander was

so impressed

with the

possibilitiesof

the

country

of

the Oreitai, in a

general sense

the

Lasbela

district, that he inaugurateda

foundation

there which

he

expected would become a

large

city

(ibid., VI, 21.5; Quintus

Curtius,

IX,

io).







788

Robert H.

McDowell

ancient

Middle East,

equalled

only,

if at

all, by

that through

the

Kabul valley.'0

Though

it will never be possible o

localize

accurately y

means

of

their coinages

all of

the

political

nuclei

established n India

and

Afghanistanby

the

Greekand

Saka chiefs

who followed

Alexander

the

Great,

the

numerouscoins

which have

survived

do provideim-

portant

data for the

recognition

f units

the

approximate

rontiers

of

which

havebeen

established

y means

of other

evidence."1

t is

gen-

erallyagreed

that

no coins

of the

Yavanaor

Bactrian

dynasties

were

struck

n the Oxus

and

Jaxartesalleys

after he

reign

of

Heliocles, hat

is,

after

about I35

B.C.

In

Seistan

and Kandahar,

and to an extent in

Ghazni,

numerous

Yavana

coins

have

been

found

which

cover the

period down

to

and including

the

reign

of Eucratides,

the contemporary

of

Mithradates

I of Parthia.

Coins

of a contemporary

prince,

Anti-

machus,

have

been reported

for

the Murghab

River

valley region

of

Margiana. Supported

as they

are by

fragmentary

literary

references,

these collections

of coins lead

to the

conclusion

that

for a generation

at

least prior to the expansion of Parthia under Mithradates I, Greek

princes

had held

all of

Arachosia

and parts

at

least

of Gedrosia,

Zarangiana,

Areia,

and

Margiana.

For the

period succeeding

the reign

of

Eucratides

no

coins of the

Yavana

princes

appear

to have circulated

in

Seistan (Zarangiana),

Kandahar

(northern

Gedrosia),

and

Ghazni

(Arachosia).

Odd pieces,

of course,

find their

way

beyond areas

of

circulation,

but

a study

of the surviving

Yavana

coinages

justifies

the

conclusion that there is no numismatic evidence pointing to the inclu-

sion of these

areas

within

the kingdoms

of

the eastern

Greeks

after

about I55

B.C.

10

Le Strange, pp. 329-33;

Holdich, pp.

I93,

209,

292-31I.

Northern Gedrosia, in

general the

districts of Quetta

and Kandahar, was classed by the

Arabs as a part

of

Sijistan.

11

The standard publication

on the coins still

remains Percy

Gardner's

Coins

of the

Greek

and

Scythic Kings of Bactria and India

(London, i886). He

was much indebted

of course to the earlier work of Alfred von Sallet, and he summarizes the data gathered

together by Sir Alexander

Cunningham covering the

find spots of the

coins. Cunningham

devoted himself for years to the

collection of coins

and of information in regard to

their

find

spots. This was published

as

The Coins

of

Alexander's Successors in

thle East

(London, 1873). It is

important

to

note that since the work of

Cunningham

relatively

few

ancient coins have been recovered

from

Afghanistan.

Among

a number of con-

tributions by the English

numismatist

R. B.

Whitehead,

I

have

cited

his "Notes

on

Indo-Greek

Numismatics",

Numismatic

Chronicle, ser. 5, pt. 3,

1923, pp.

294-343.

The Cambridge

History of India,

Volume I, contains three very

important studies

based

in part on the numismatic evidence: "The Hellenic Kingdoms of Syria, Bactria, and

Parthia"

by

Sir

George

Macdonald

and "The

Successors of Alexander the Great"

and

"The Scythian

and

Parthian

Invaders"

by

Professor

E.

J. Rapson.







The Indo-Parthian

Frontier

789

The

Yavana

principalities

f the

Indusbasin

ook

shape

rom

about

155 B.C.

to

some time

prior to the middle of the

first

centuryB.C.,

and

undernew dynastiesheypersisted t leastto the middleof thesucceed-

ing

century.The

outline

which

follows

s

based

argely

on the

very

able

and

generally

uccessful

econstructionf the

numismatic

vidence

by

Professor

Rapson.The

princes

of

the House of

Euthydemus

ad

their

center n

the

eastern

Punjab,

where

they

represented

continuation

f

the earlier

kingdomof

Poros.

In

periods

of

expansion

hey

dominated

also

the lower

Indus

valleyand the

seacoast,

hough

for

the most

part

these

areasdo

not

appear o have

been

effectively

held

by

the Yavana

kingdoms,and to the

north

hey

expanded

nto Kashmir

and

the

upper

Indus

valley;at

shorter ntervals

heir

rule

extended

westward

o

in-

clude

much of

the

territory

normally

held

by

the rival

House

of

Eucratides.

The

greatest

center

of the

House of

Eucratides

was

undoubtedly

Gandhara,and

their

kingdom

is

generally

equatedwith

the

com-

bined

satrapies

f

Philipand

Nikanor.To

this

I would

add,

for

much

of

this

period,

he

satrapy

f

the

Paropamisadaend

would

distinguish

more

specifically

han does

Rapsona

dependent

unit

in

southwestern

Punjab

which

had

formed

part

of the

satrapy f

Philip.12

After

Gand-

hara

the

most

important

olitical

unit

heldby

the

House of

Eucratides

was

Kapica,

which,

as the

kingdom

of

Hermaeus,

urvived

after

the

valleyof

the

Indus

had

passed

nto

the

hands

of a

new

dynasty.

Rapson

equates

his

name

with

the

upper

Kabul

valley

and

Kafiristan, ut

the

evidencedoesnot support his.Kapicacertainlyncludedpartsof the

Kabul

valley

and

Kafiristan,but

the

study

of

its

characteristicoin

types

in

relation o

the

areas n

which

these

types

are

known

to have

circulated

equires

hat

the

centerof

this

unit

be.

ocated

within

the

area

embracedy

the

Kunar

and

Swat

valleys,

hat s,

within

the

satrapy

of

Nikanor.

The

coinsof

Hermaeus

are

found in

large

numbers

not

only

in

the

Kabul

valley

but to

the

east

in the

Indus

valley

and

the

Punjab,wherethisprincemustlonghavedisputed he riseof the new

dynasty.

The

late

Chinese

references

o

Kapica,

citedby

Rapson,refer

not

to

the

upper

Kabulvalley

but to the

Swat

valley,

whichwas a

great

Buddhist

center

and

lay

near

the

well-known

southern

road

from

China to

India.'3

12

Rapson,

"The

Successors

of

Alexander

the

Great",

Cam.

Hist.

India,

I,

545-60.

13

For

the

holdings

of

Hermaeus

see

Whitehead,

pp.

340,

342; for

the

discussion

of

Kapica see Rapson, Cam. Hist. India, I, 555-56. Imitation of the coinage of Hermaeus

must

be

attributed

to

the

Yueh-chi

prior

to

the

rise of

the

Kushana

dynasty

rather

than

to

Pahlava

kings

of

the

Kabul

valley.

The

boundaries of

Kapica

in

the

seventh

century







790

Robert H.

McDowell

Another

mportantnucleus

of the

House

of

Eucratides

as

hitherto

beenknownonly by the monogram

which

distinguished

ts

mint,

kappa

withrho."4 considerable odyof data s available or theidentification

of this mint areaand pointsvery definitely o

the

territory

which

had

its

center in the Bamian valley, the earlier Paropamisadae

nd

the

kingdomof Bamianof the Middle Ages.

The

mint was

employedby

at least fifteen Yavanaprincesandchada longer

life than

any

of

the

other

Greek mints of the

East,

from the

reign

of

Euthydemus to

just prior to

the accessionof

Hermaeus,

he

last

of the Yavana

ines.

In it was struckmoreof the silverof Euthydemus than in anyother

one

mint, and it shared n the issueof his bronze.Since

the greater

part

of

the

known coins of this reign have been foundnorthof the Hindu

Kush, this mint must have been adjacentto the

Oxus valley. An

analysisof the coins of Demetrius I points to the

same conclusion.

Of

thosecoinsof Euthydemus

which

have been recovered

outhof the

Hindu Kush, by far the greater part come from the upper Kabul

valley; the mint, therefore,must have been adjacent o this area.On

the Qther and,the greaternumberof the princeswho

made use of this

mint ruled

only

southof

the

Hindu

Kush; it follows

of course hat it

cannot

have been located n Bactria.These conditions

an be satisfied

only by an assignment f the mint to eitherBamianor the headof the

Kabul valley, but the latter must be ruled out becauseof other con-

siderations.

In his study of the YavanacoinagesWhiteheadhas noted a group

of

five mint markswhich he was unableto place in the Indus valley,

Punjab,or Kapica,and which appeared o have beenparticularly s-

sociatedwith the region of the Kabul valley. The

mint distinguished

by kappa-rhos one of these five, but the evidence

uggests hat it was

less directly onnectedwith the Kabul valley tself thanwere the other

four.

The English numismatistdiscusses n detail

ninety-seven ilver

coins found in the upper Kabul valley which cover

nine reigns and

mav

not be applied to the first

century

B.C.

in

the absence of corroborative

evidence.

Cunningham and

Rapson did not

have access to the Chinese

material which

has been

made

fully available

by

De

Groot. The common

view that the

city of Katisa, named by

Ptolemy for the

Paropamisadae,

representsKapica

is a pure surmise.

14Macdonald

(Cam.

Hist.

India,

I,

443)

recognizes

this

monogram

as

a true mint

mark and discusses its

importance.

Cf. Whitehead,

pp.

3I1 and

3I5-I6.

It

should

be

emphasized

that such mint

marks

do not

necessarilyrepresent

names of

cities. All of

the

great Parthianmints of Iran from about

70

B.c.

are so

distinguished,

and

the

Parthian

practice

appears

to have been borrowed

directly

from

the

Bactrian.







T'he

Indo-Parthian

Frontier

79I

show

thirteen

different

mint

marks.

The

four

mints for

the

upper

valley are

represented

by

i6, 26,

I7,

and

ii

specimens

each,

the

fifth

mint by only one coin.'5 Even more opposed to the attribution of this

mint

to

the

Kabul

valley

is

the

evidence

that it was

employed

by

the

Parthians

from

about

70

B.C.

to

about

25

B.C.

A

large

series

of

Parthian

coins

for

this

period,

thoroughly

homogeneous

in

their

style,

bear

either the

kappa-rho

r

kappa

alone.

The

latter form

occurs

also

in

the

Yavana

coinage

of

this

mint.

The

Parthian

series

cannot be

as-

signed

to

areas

further

west,

and

their

style

had led

me

to associate

them with the Bactrian region before my attention was called to the

Yavana

series.'6

The

latter

antedates

70 B.C.,

though

the mint

area was

very

probably

temporarily

occupied

also

by

Mithradates

I

and

Mith-

radates II.

The

interest

of

both

Parthians

and Greeks

of the

East

in

the

Bamian

region

may be

explained

by the

presence there of

silver

mines as

well

as

by its

commercial

and

strategic

importance

as

a

passageway.

This location of an importantYavana nucleus in the Paropamisadae

throws

new

light

on

the

history

of

Greek

dominationof

the

Middle

East.

Though

Bactria

itself

was lost,

we

find

Greeks

holding

a

solid

block

of

territory

from

the

Punjab

north

and

west

to

the

whole

line

of

the

mountain

crest

which

overlooked

Bactria

and

possessed

of

lines

of

com-

munication

not

only

with

the

Oxus

but

with

Areia

and

thence to

Media,

farther

west.

In

this

arrangement the

Kabul

valley

stands

out

in

the

perspective

which

we

know was appropriate or the earlierperiod

of

Alexander

and

the

later

Islamic

period-never

an

important

center

in

its

own

right,

it

was

essentially

a

passageway

and a

dependency

of

adjoining

centers.

This

conclusion is

supported

by

the

extremely

varied

character

of

the

numerous

coins

found

there.

Sometime

early in

the

first

century

B.C.

a Saka

dynasty,

that

of

Maues

and

Azes,

had

risen

in

the

Indus

valley

and by

the

middle of

the

century

had

occupied

Gandhara

and

the

Punjab.

This

consolidation of

all

of

the

Yavana

holdings

in

the

Indus

basin,

with

the

exception of

Kapica

where

for a

brief

period

Hermaeus

continued

to

rule,

had

Gandhara for

its

center

and

was

equivalent

to

the

satrapy

of

Philip

with

the

kingdoms of

Poros and

Abhisares.

In

the

latter

area

lay

the

15

Whitehead,

pp.

315-I6.

16

These

Parthian

coins

wvillbe

discussed in

greater

detail

in

a

later

study.

Warwick

Wroth

(Catalogue

of

the

Coins

of Partthia

[London,

1903],

p.

48,

n. i)

has

failed

to

note the rho combinedwith the kappa,but I have observedit

repeated s, and

it

has been

recorded

by

Alexander

von

PetroNvicz

(Arsaciden-Tvtiinzen

[Vienna,

1904],

p.

42,

no.

23).







792 Robert H. McDowell

original nucleus of the new dynasty, and this nev development

is

significant.1

Rapsonhas insistedthat the Sakai of whom Maueswas the chief

had formed part of the group which had attacked Parthia

and

must

have entered India by way of the lower Indus valley.

His

argument

rests on a number of fallacies. Contrary to the statement

of

Rapson,

the

displacement of Sakai by the Yueh-chi, which

is described

in

the

Chinese annals, took place, not in the country

north

of

Bactria,

but

in

a district northeast of the Pamirs, 0-sun, and

must be

distinguished

from the displacement mentioned by our Western sources. Rapson

rejects the possibility that the Sakai

of Maues

entered

India

by way

of

the upper Indus or through one of

the

Kabul

valley approaches

because

he assumes that they came in a body within a short period of time and

in a state of political advancement requiring the issue of their own

coinage. Neither of these assumptions is valid. We have already noted

the Saka country shown by Ptolemy along the whole northern and

eastern border of the upper Indus basin; these were the Sakai who had

much

earlier been conquered by Cyrus the Great, who had played an

important part in Alexander's conquest of India, and who may be

presumed to have filled a similar role under the Yavana feudal lords.

It is only reasonable to assume a gradual infiltration of Saka elements

into the upper Indus basin over a long period of time. As a final cul-

mination of a long process we have the event cited by Rapson from

the Chinese sources: Saka princes driven out by the Yueh-chi went

south and became chiefs in the new land. All of the evidence thus

points

to

the upper

Indus

valley as the

nucleus

of

the

power

of the

new dynasty, and within the new kingdom of Gandhara which they

established there was effectively included, probably

for

the first

time,

all of

the upper Indus basin which Ptolemy

shows

as

an

integral part

of

western India.

Coins of Maues and Azes, as well as of their successorsAzilises and

17

For a general

discussion

of these

Sakai in India

see Rapson,

"The Scythian

and

ParthianInvaders", Cam.

Hist.

India, I,

563-7I.

Cf.

Whitehead, p. 338,

and

Gardner,

p. xl.

The coins of

Maues have

been found chiefly

in

northwestern

Punjab. A number

of

his

early types have

been copied from

the coins

of

the

much earlier

Menander and

Demlletrius,who had

extended the Yavana

frontiers into

regions not

retained by their

successors,

with the

exception

of

Hippostratus.The

latter

appears

to

have

ruled

in the

Punch valley of

Kashmir,

and

his issues

are

closely

related to

those of

both

Maues and

Azilises. The

evi(lence suggests

that

the nev dynasty rose in the upper Indus valley and

retained that area

in

the

subsequent period

of

contraction.

For

the

Sakai

see

also

PtolelmY,

VI,

13.







The

Indo-Parthian Frontier

793

Azes

II,are

not

known

for the

Ghazni

country

or

for

the

Kabul

valley

above

Jelalabad.

There

does occur in

the

valley,

and

apparently nly

there,a seriesof issuesbelonging o a Vononesand an associatedroup

of

Saka

rulers.The

style

and

typesof

these

coins

are so

closely

related

to

thoseof

the Sakai

n

Gandhara

nd

the

Punjab

hat

thetwo

groups

of

princes

must be

classed

together,and

it is

generally

accepted hat

Azes

II

represents fusion of both elements.'8

Rapson

states

that

the

family

of

Vonones

ruled over

"Drangiana

Seistan]

and

Arachosia

[Kandahar]".

n this

he

disregards

ompletely

he essential

actor

of

find spotsand baseshimself on the characteristicypesfound on the

coins of

Vonones,

which,

he

says,

were

"presumably"

truck

n

some

districtof

Arachosia.But

these same

types

were

employedby

Azes,

Azilises,or

Hermaeus,

who by no stretchof the

imagination

an be

thoughtto

have

ruled Seistan,

Kandahar,or even Ghazni.

The

as-

sumption

of

Rapson

s

reasonable

hat the

character

f

the

legend

on

this class

of

coins,

with

its reference

o

jointrulers,

points

to

two

dif-

ferentareascontrolledby one paramount hief.As one area I would

suggest

the

Kabul valley,

where the

coins

occur, with

Arachosiaas

we

have

defined it,

excluding

the

Kandahar

district.As

the

second

area,

joined to

the first by

the

Gumal and Tochi

passes, outhwestern

Punjab, outh

of the

Peshawar

istrict,

presentstself

as a

logicalchoice.

Identifiedwith

this

area,

the

types of

Vonones

and

his

associates

fulfill

all of

the

requirements f their

occurrence n

other

reigns.

Before he

fusionof thetwvoroupsunderAzesII, theprinces f Kabul

and

Arachosia ppear

t

times o

have

extended

heir

rule

over

Peshawar

and

parts

of

Gandhara.

t is

not

necessary o

assume,

as

do

Rapson

and

Thomas,

that

Vonones

occupiednot

only

the Kabul

valley but

brought

to

an

end the

rule of

Hermaeus

n

what

had been

left of

Kapica.

During this

period

Azilises

continued to rule

in

parts of

Gandhara

ndthe

Punjab,

and

theChinese

ources uggest

hat

Kapica,

in

partat least,

became

unitedto

Gandhara.The date

given

by

Rapson

for

Vonones

is

approximately

orrect,

though it

will be

suggested

below

that he

had

established

himself in

the

Kabul

valleyprior to

36

B.C. For

our

present

purposes he

particular

ignificance f

the rise

of

Vonones ies

in

the

evidence t

affords

of the

development f

a new

nucleus

and,

for the first

time

since the

reign

of

Eucratides,

f an

18

Gardner,

pp. xl-xli;

Rapson,

Camii.

Hist.

India., I,

568-74.

Vonones

himself

pre-

sumably

was no

Saka, but an

Iranian

prince

who

had

joined

himself

to

this

group.

He may have been an Arsacid,but, as vill be

shown

belov, the

date

limits of

his

reign

do

not

permit of

his identification

as

Vonones

I

of

Parthia,

as

has

been

suggested.







794 Robert

H. AMIcDowell

extension

of

the Indian

frontier

to include

Arachosia,

he

region of

Ghazni and of Lake

Ab-i-Istada.

The successor f Azes II in Gandhara nd the Punjabwas Gondo-

pharnes, nd

his reign in Gandhara egan n

A.D.

i9.19

These

admitted

facts,however,

determineneither he

original

nucleusof

his

power

nor

the

date

at which

he

established imselfoutside

Gandhara. he bulk

of

the extantcoinsof

Gondopharnesave been found

n

the Kabul

valley,

and

a

considerable uantity n the Punjab.

Relatively

ew

have

been

reported rom Kandahar

nd Seistan.He

countermarked

oins of

his

contemporaryArtabanus I of Parthiaand of the earlierOrodesII.

On

his early

coins he copied

one of the types

of this same

Arsacid

and

borrowed the

title

A#itokrator

rom the

still

earlier Sinatruces

of

Parthia.Withoutciting finds

of his coins

Rapson

assumes hat

Gondo-

pharnes eigned n

"Arachosia"ecause f a

supposed elationship

with

Vonones;that

is,

he assumes

or Gondopharneshe argumentswhich

he

applied o

the types of Vonones.

Though I find no evidenceof a relationship etweenGondopharnes

and

Vonones,

I would

accept he

assumption f Rapsonas applied o

Arachosia s here defined.

There can be

no doubt that

Gondopharnes

interfered n Parthian

affairs and

territory,but the

evidence of the

coins points

only to this and

not to

prolonged rule over districts which

had

hitherto

beenParthian.

would suggest,rather, hat

Gondopharnes

rose

to powerin a region

of Arachosia,

bove Lake Ab-i-Istada,hat

hadonce beenParthianbutwas so no longer.There he imitatedcoins

of

former

reigns.From an earlypoint in

his reign he

must have ruled

also

in the Kabul valley,

and to that area I

would assignat least one,

perhaps

both,

classesof his

coins with the

Nike reverse.

Thus far his

coinage

remainsentirelydistinctfrom

that

of his Saka

predecessors.

The

greater

numberof his known types,

however,closely

ollow those

of Azes

and Azilises, and

they must be

assigned to the succeeding

period of his rule in

Gandharaand the

Punjab. The date for his

accessiongbasedon an

inscriptionmade n

Gandhara nd

is expressed

in

termsof an

Indianera; it can be takento

indicateonly

the acknowl-

edgmentof

his successiono

the throneof

this ancientcenter.The date

19

Rapson,

Cam.

Hist. India,

I, 576-78.

For the

find

spots of the coins of

Gondo-

pharnes

see

Gardner,pp. xlv, 1. Ernst

Herzfeld

("Sakastan",

ArchaeologischeMitteilungen

aus

Iran, IV [Jan.,

1932],

91-102) has

argued that the center

of power

of Gondopharnes

lay in

Seistan,

and in this he

has

seriously altered the

chronology

of the preceding

reigns. Though there is much of value in his discussion,his disregardof the essential

unity of the

numismatic

evidence makes

unacceptable

his

argument for the

location

of

the

kingdom of

Gondopharnes as

well as

that of the Chinese unit

known

as

Ke-pin.







The Indo-Parthian Frontier

795

A.D.

I9

is

importantas fixing the definite

union

of the Punjab,

Gand-

hara,Kapica, he Kabul valley,and Arachosia.

In this connectionwe must consider he coinageof the "nameless

king" of this period, who called himself on his

issues

simply

Soter

Megas.20The great majorityof his coins represent complete

break

with

the types and style which had characterized

he

coinages

of

the

Mauesand Vononesgroup as well as with the

later

issues of

Gondo-

pharnes.On all of the latter a horseman s shown

on the

obverse,

whereasSoterMegas, ike the Arsacids,displayed

he

royalportrait n

the obverse. The reverseof his coins invariablybears

the

figure

of

a

horseman,but it is done in a style closely similarto

that on

contem-

porary

and

later Parthiancoins. The

coins of

Soter

Megas

occur

ill

great numbers n the Kabul valley and are noted by

Gardner

or no

other

area.

For the period ucceedingGondopharnes,

owever,

he

issues

of

the

Kushanadynasty ccur n that valley n

even

greater

abundance.

This fact togetherwith the wide diversityof styleseparating

he

coin-

ages of the Kushanasand Soter

Megas

equires he assignment

f the

latter o the period mmediately receding

Gondopharnes,nd it

follows

that he must have been the successor f Vonones in the Kabul

valley

and, presumably,n Arachosia.

Soter

Megas, suggest,was the firstof the

so-calledPahlava

rulers.

From some nucleus n Arachosia ear the Parthianborderhe rose and

destroyed

he

power of Vonones. While

Soter

Megas

controlled he

Kabul valley and Arachosia,and perhaps

ts

extension

through

the

Gumal Pass to the Indus, Azes II continued o rule in Gandhara,

partof the Punjab,and probablyn the Swat valley

of

Kapica.

would

suggest, further,that Gondopharnesnheritedthe

kingdom of Soter

Megas and continuedto rule his territory or some

years before he

invadedand conqueredGandhara.The rise of Soter

Megas represents

a

reactionagainstthe earlierrise of Vonones and his Saka associates,

but

the

two mustbe considered s the founders f a

kingdomwhichfor

perhaps ifty yearsmaintained tself betweenIndiaand Parthia.

The

united

kingdom of Gondopharnes,which centered n Gand-

hara, was broken up by the rise of the Kushanadynasty. n Pacores

and

Orthagneswe have two Pahlavaprinceswho maintained hem-

selves orsomeyears hereaftern Arachosia nd

southwestern

unjab.Y

20Gardner,

pp.

xlvii, 1,

I14-i6. Rapson

(Cam. Hist.

India,

I,

58I)

suggests

that

Soter

Megas

may have

been

a

subordinate

of the

Kushana

dynasty,

but the

style and

types of his coins are definitelyearlier and are completelyforeign to those of KadphisesI

and

his

successors.

21

Rapson,

Cam.

Hist.

India, 1,

58,

580.

Rapson

has

made

Orthagneq

a

predecessor







796

Rober-t H.

McDowell

The types of

the former

associate

him in particular

with the Indian

side

of the Gumal

Pass, whereas

the

lattercan have

ruled only in

Arachosia,

ut

the coinsof both

occur

n Kandahar

nd

Seistan.

This

advance s to

be connected

with the

civil wars

in

Parthiaduring the

reign

of Volagases

I.

There are known

coins of

Phraates

V of

Parthia

which have

been

countermarked

y an unnamed

Saka ruler;these coins appear

o have

been

struck in the Parthian

mint

of southern

Gedrosia.Sanabares,

another

Sakaor Pahlavaprince,

mitated

coins of Volagases

which

must be attributedo

this same

mint.On the

basis

of

these associations

both of theseprincesmustbe assignedo the deltacountryof the Indus

valley,

immediately

adjoining

Gedrosia,

where,

as

we

learn

from the

Periplus,

uring

this very period

"Parthian"

ords

ruled in

a state

of

constantcivil

war.22

This outline

of

the political units

which

borderedthe

eastern

frontiersof

Parthia

during the periods

of Greek

and

Saka rulein the

Middle East can

be filled in

and rendered

more

completeby

evidence

from contemporaryChineseannals.We are here concernedchiefly

with

data to

be foundin the

Ch'ien-han-sut,

houghrecourse

s had to

the

earlier

Shi-ki

nd

the later

Hou-han-su.The

picture

here

presented

appliesto the

first century

B.C. and to that

part of

the next century

whichprecededhe rise

of the

Kushanadynasty.23

or

this periodand

the

areaembracingnorthwestern

ndia

and the Afghan

country

north

of

Gondopharneson

the basis of

an issue

wvhich, n the

obverse,

bears the name of

the

former as

paramount

king and, on the

reverse,

the name of

Gondopharnes. I

suggest,

rather, that it

was

struck after the defeat

of

Gondopharnes but before

his death.

This

supposition

appearsto be necessitated

by

the fact that

all of

the coins

of

Orthagnes

mitate

the

portrait of

Volagases I of

Parthia,

who came to the

throne

in A.D.

5I.

I

refer

in

particular

o

an

issue

of drachms

of

Volagases

struck,

I

believe,

in

the mint of

Drangiana,

of

which I have seen

several

examples.

Petrowicz (p.

129,

no.

I4)

has

published

what

appearsto be a

similar

piece.

22Wroth,

p.

I14,

nos. 96-I02. For

the coins

of

Sanabaressee Gardner,

p.

I13, nos.

I-5.

The first

of these coins

bears the

mark of the Parthian

mint of

Ecbatanaand a

date

which may be "IT" rather than as given. Though dates rarely occur on the Parthian

coinage of Iran, when

employed

they are

invariably based

on the

Arsacid

Era,'

and

the

date

in this

instance,

too, should be

read as A.D.

62/63.

Though

apparently of

the

delta

country

by origin, there

are some

grounds for

classing

Sanabares as a king

of

Parthia; his

successor n

Parthiamay have

been

Mithradates

V. See also

Le

Pe'riple

de

la

n2er

trythre6e, dited by

H. Frisk

(G6teborg, I927),

no. 38.

23

For the

most

part

I

shall

cite the

now

standard

translationand

commentary

of

J. J.

M. de

Groot,

Chinesische

Urkunden

ztir Geschichte Asiens

(2 vols.,

Berlin,

I92I-

I926),

especially Volume

II,

Die Westlande

Chinas

in

der

vorchristlichen

Zeit.

I

have

made use, also, of 0. Franke, Geschichtedes chinesische Reiches, Volume I (Berlin,

1930),

and Sten Konow, "Notes

on

Indo-Scythian

Chronology",Journalof

Indian

History,

XII

(Apr., 1933), 1-46.







The Indo-Parthian

Frontier

797

to the Oxus

River,the Chinese

recognized

o the

east

of Parthia

wo

so-calledgreat

kingdoms,

Ke-pin and

0-ik-san-li, together

with a

numberof smaller

kingdoms

or dependent

districts.Among

the

latter

we are particularly

oncerned

with Ko-hu,

P'ak-tat,

and the country

occupied

by

the fiveclans

of the

Yueh-chi.

In this particular

period

the

Yueh-chi

occupied

the

upperOxus

valleyfrom

the Pamirs

west to

include

Badakshan nd

the

Kunduz

River valley,

as

well as upper

Chitral.24

outh

and southeast

of the

Yueh-chi

was saidto lie

Ke-pin.

Most scholars,

nfluenced

y similarity

of

sound, identify

Ke-pin

with

Kapica,though

the Peshawar

district

is generallyncluded.25The philological elationshipn this instances

probable

but

establishes

no boundaries.

Kapica

was

better known

to

the Chinese, ince

it lay

nearer heirborders,

han

Gandhara.

or that

reason

heyused that

name,

but the territory

hey

referred

o included

Gandhara.

A

part

was used

to denote he

whole,

just

as theGreeks

had

used the wordParthia

o

denote

a largerempire.

Lan-to,

a dependent

districtof

Ke-pin,

lay to

the northeast,

and De

Groot has

been

able

to identify t with the Hunza country, arbeyondKapica.

24

There

is

general

agreement, based on

precise geographicaldata, that their

territory

comprised Wakhan,

Badakshan, and Chitral.

Most writers include also Kafiristan

and

parts of the Kabul valley. For the former

there is no evidence

whatsoever, and it con-

tradicts the texts; for the latter the

numismatic evidence' is

strongly opposed, and

Bamian more nearly

meets the requirements of the text. This

will be discussed

under

Ko-hu. In spite of the

general agreement as to the actual location

of the five clans,

there

is a

tendency on the part of scholars to

assume that in some

manner they also

controlled

Bactria during this

period. This is based

largely

on the

assumption that in the

second

century

B.C.

the Yueh-chi

had

invaded

Bactria,

called

by the

Chinese

the Kingdom

of

Ta-ha, from their base

in Sogdiana, which

the Chinese regardedas also Ta-ha

country.

Though the texts

repeatedly distinguish

between the Kingdom

of

Ta-ha south

of the

Oxus

River and the Ta-ha territory north of

the river, where alone the Yueh-chi

are

described as located

during this earlier

period, scholars have

completely

missed the

dis-

tinction-largely owing to

their preoccupationwith attempts

to

identif)

the

Yueh-chi

with

one

or

more

of

the nomad tribes

named

bv

our Western sources. The evidence

offered

to

connect the

Yueh-chi

with

Bactria

in

the

first

century

is

so weak

that it

would not have

received

support except

for

the

fatal confusion

in

the

history

of the

second

century.

This evidence concerns

the names of

capital cities: In the

second century B.C. the

capital

of

Bactria was

called Lam-si, a

century

later that of the Yueh-chi in their

new

home bore

the

name

Kam-si, and seven hundred

years

after this

the name Lam-si

occurs

as

a district of

To-ho-lo,

a term

which

the

Chinese

had

adopted

to designate Yueh-chi

territory.At best,

identificationthrough

similarity

in

the supposed

sound is weak. In this

instance scholars have

disregarded

the clear statement in the

Hou-han-su, which

directly

follows the

Ch'ien-han-st,

that the Yueh-chi

first took

P'ak-tat

(the

countr)

around

Balkh) only upon

the rise

of

the

Kushana

dynasty

in the

period

just

after

that with

which

we

are

dealing.

For

the situation in the second

century

see

De Groot, II,

I2-27;

for that in the first century, ibid., pp. 95-I 02,

109.

Cf.

Konow, pp.

sO-I I,

I4.

25

De Groot, II,

85-87; Rapson, Cant.

Hist.

India, I, 566-67. Konow (pp.

I5,

31)

admits

that

Ke-pin finally

embraced

all of the Gandhara

kingdom.







798

Robert

H.

McDowell

In itself

conclusive s the

description

f Ke-pin.

Along

with

Parthia

and

0-ik-san-li t

was

distinguished

s a

great

kingdom

possessed

f

its

own coinage.The landwas saidto be flat and the climatemild,so the

characteristic

art

of

the

country

must have

embraced

he

Indus

plain

of Gandhara. It

produced

sandalwoodand

bamboo,

and

its

fauna

included

the elephantand the buffalo.

Its inhabitants

were

adept

in

the

construction

f

great

buildings

and in

carving,

engraving,

and

inlay

work.

Further

proof

of the

identity

of

Ke-pin

restson

interesting

numismaticnotes

in the

Chinesetext.

For this

particular

period

the

Parthiancoinagewas said to bear on the reverse the portraitof a

woman.This can refer

only

to

Musa,wife and

motherof

Phraataces

(2 B.C.-A.D.

5);

their

coinage

s

especially

haracteristic

f

southeastern

Iran.

The

contemporary

oinages of

Ke-pin and

0-ik-san-li

are

compared n

the further

tatement hat the

obverse

of

the

formerbore

the figure

of a

horseman,

while in the

case

of

the

latterthe horseman

appearedon

the

reverse.As we have

already

seen, the

coinage thus

attributedoKe-pin s characteristicf thekingdomof Gandhara nder

the

Saka

dynasty,

and that to

0-ik-san-li,

of the

kingdom

of

Soter

Megas.

It

is

clear,

therefore,

hat

the

Ke-pin

of

the Chinese

sources

s

the

kingdom

of

Gandhara,

which in

succession

ad

been

the

kingdom

of the

House

of

Eucratides,

he

kingdom

of

the

Saka

dynasty

of

Maues, and, later,

the

kingdom

of

Gondopharnes.

he

Chinese

evi-

dence

demonstrates,

s

the

types

of

Maues had

suggested,

hat

this

great

political unit extended

far

to the north in

the

upper

Indus

basin,

where

it

must have

touched

the

country

of the Sakai

delimited

by

Ptolemy.

0-ik-san-li,

besides

being

identified

as

the

kingdomof

Soter

Megas,

was

said to

lie

both west and

southwestof

Ke-pin as well as

to the

east

of

Parthia.

t

was described s

flat,

veryfertile,but

very

hot. As

west of

Ke-pinit clearly

embraced

Arachosia, s

we

have

defined t,

and the

district f

Kabul.

As

southwest f Ke-pin,

and

characterizedy

extreme

heat, we

must

concludenot only

that

it

extendedeast

through

the Gumal and

Tochi

passes

but that

it

included

an

important

rea n

southwestern

Punjab,

for to the

Chinese this

was

the

characteristic

part

of

the

country.26

Further

evidence is

afforded

by the

descriptionof the

principal

branch

of the

greatsouthern

oad

from

Chinato the far

west. It

passed

through

Khotan,and

considerable

etail

is given of its

course

thence

southwest hroughKe-pinand its terminus n O-ik-san-li.27lthough

26De Groot, II,

86,

9I,

93.

27

Ibid.,

pp.

47-48,

69-70,

92.







The


799

four

principal

outes

are

described,

nly

in the

one

instan'ce

s this

detail

afforded;

and it

is to

be

takenas

evidenceof the

importance

f

both

route and terminus.The Chineseapparentlyknew nothing of the

great

desert

of the

Sind,and

they

fail to

mentionthe

sea in

connection

with

the

terminus..

One

may

presume,

herefore,

hat

their

road

came

to an

end

north

of

the

Sind, and

there

may

be

real

significance

n

the

fact

that the

road

from

Bagdadto

Indiadescribed

by

the

early

Arab

geographers

xtended

to

Multan

in

southwestern

unjab,adjacent o

the very

area

we

are

discussing.The

description

f the sea route

from

Egypt and the PersianGulf to the Indus mouthgiven in the Periplus

belongs

o

the same

centuryas

does the

Chineseaccount.

Even

moreclosely

contemporarys

the

account

given by

Isidor

of

Charax

of the

route

from

Syria

through

Seleucia,

which he

bringsto

an

end

on the

Parthian

border

at

what he

calls

the

metropolisof

Arachosia.

Now

the

Chinese

ext

states

that in

orderto

reach

Parthia

from

the

terminusone

proceeded

orthand

a

littleto

the

east (appar-

entlyanerror or"west"),andif fromMultan,orfromthedistrictnear

it on the

westbank

of the

Indus,one

proceeds

north

and a

short

dis-

tance

west

through

he Gumal

Passone

reaches

he

very

point

where

our

western

ources

allplace

the

capitalof

Arachosia,

nd

where Isidor

places the

contemporary

Parthian

border.28

The

Arab name

for

Ghazni,

"the

port of

India", inks

it

with

southwestern

unjab

n the

trade

from the

Oxus

valley.

This

remarkableeries

of

Chinesedocu-

mentsof the firstcenturydemonstrateshe existenceof an important

political

unit

stretching

across

Arachosia o

the

middle

Indus

valley,

which

served o

link

the

commerce

f

theupper

ndusvalley

and

China

and

thatof

Parthiaand

the

Indus

delta.

0-ik-san-li

was in

existence

as

a

kingdom

independent

of

Ke-pin

as

early

as

36

B.C,

when

it

was

included

in a

report

to

the

Chinese

courtas

oneof

the

nations

hreatened

y therise

to

powerof

Tche-tche

and

the

K'ang-ki

of

Sogdiana.9

This

reference

an

apply

only

to the

reign of

Vonones,while

he

and

his

associates

were

ruling

Arachosia

and

the

Kabul

valley,

and

it

confirms

he

suggestion

alreadymade

that

Soter

Megas

mustbe

recognizedas the

successor f

Vonones in

Ara-

chosia.

The

reference

s

importantnot

only

as

establishinghe

date

for

Vonones

but.

through this. for the suDnort it accords the

oenernI

28

See

note 7

above.

For Multan

and

the

Arab

route

see

Holdich, pp.

I92-93;

Le

Strange,

pp.

332-33;

Isidor of

Charax,

no.

i9.

29De

Groot,

II, 103-104;

see also

Volume I,

Die

Hunnen

der

vorchistlichen

Zeit,

p.

230.







800

Robert H. McDowell

chronology or the

Yavanaand Saka

kings,

which has

been

worked

out by Rapson.

We have

seen that the Yueh-chi

were

located

during

the

first

cen-

tury

B.C.

in

the Oxus valley from the

Pamirs

to,

and

including,

Badakshan.The districts

occupied

by

four of

the

five

clans are

de-

scribedas extending n a

row from

east to west,

and

the fifth

clan

is

said

to be

located outhof

the

fourth.In the

Ch'ien-han-su

he

territory

of this

fifth clan is

calledby the

name

Ko-hu,

but

the

Hot-han-su,

which

takes

up

the

narrativerom

the rise

of the Kushana

dynasty,

states

that in this

the earlier

annalswere in error, hat the

country

of

the fifth clanbore the name To-bit,and that Ko-hulay southwestof

the Yueh-chi

districtsand was a

large

wealthy countrywith a

dis-

tinctiveculture

related o that of

India.It had neverbeen

independent

but had

successively

een under

the

rule of

T'ien-tok

Eastern

Punjab

and in

partKashmir),

Ke-pin,and

Parthia;

he Yueh-chi

ook

it

only

when

Kadphises

first

expanded

his district o establish

he Kushana

empire.

Not

only

is Parthia

named as

the

last

to hold

Ko-hu

prior

to

this, but in a laterpassagewe find againthe statement:"He [Kad-

phisesI]

attackedParthia,

took possession

of

Ko-hu,

and

destroyed

P'ak-tatand Ke-pin."

Some

scholarshave

identifiedKo-hu as the

upper

Kabulvalley,but

the

evidence

trongly

upportsts equationwith

the district

of Bamian.

Here

lay

the center

for an

importantarea; it

possessed

greatwealth;

as

a

great

Buddhistcenter

ts culturalrelations

with India

musthave

beenclose;andit lay southwestof Badakshan,which was the heartof

the

Yueh-chi

country.I suggest that

the fifth

clan had occupied

he

upper Kunduz

valley,

corresponding

o To-bit;

that about

25 B.C.

it

took

possession

of

Bamian, adjacent

to this valley, and

forced

the

closing of the Parthian

mint of

Bamian; that the

Parthians ater re-

gained

political

control

of

Bamian

with its new

element,

probably

during

the

reign

of

Artabanus

I,

who is

known

to

have waged suc-

cessful wars in the East; and that during the civil wars between

Vardanesand

Gotarzes,

Kadphises conquered

Bamian

as

described

in

the

Hou-han-su.

Under this

interpretation, hich

appears o meet

all of

the

requirements,

oth of the

Chinese

recordscan

be

accepted

without

contradiction;

he later

of the two

naturally eflectshe

account

30

De Groot, II,

IOI-102.

See

also page 48 for a third

century Chinese

document

which names as

dependencies of the

Yueh-chi the regions of

Ko-hu, Ta-ha,

Ke-pin, etc.

This suggests that Ko-hu, like the other units named, had not formed an integral part

of

the

territory

of the

five clans. In all of

the

Chinese

texts Parthia is

referred

to as

An-sik, and the

term is

never

applied

to

any

other

country.







The


8oi

most

favorable o the prestigeof

the

Kushanadynasty.

Ko-hu

thus

appearsas

the

equivalentof the great

kingdom of

Bamian

of

the

Middle

Ages,

of the

greatborderlinemint

area of the

Parthian

and

Yavanakingdoms,andof theParopamisadaef theHellenistic ources.

Overa

periodof severalyears

around he

middle

of

the

first

century

A.D.

Kadphises conqueredand

united

Bactria

proper,Bamian, and

the

kingdom

of

Gandharawith itsextensions

nto the

Kunar,Swat,

and

upperIndus

valleys.31 he

Kabul

valley

must

have been

included,but

the

situation n

Arachosia s not

clear.As

we haveseen,it hadformed

part

of the united

kingdom of

Gondopharnes, ut

after

his

defeat

Pacoresand Orthagnescontinuedto rule thereand in southwestern

Punjab or anindefinite

period.

Unlike Ke-pinand

Ko-hu,

0-ik-san-li

does not

appear

o

have been

mentionedby later

Chinesesources

as

a

dependency f

theYueh-chi,and

it is not

clearwhether

Arachosia

was

then

countedas

an

integralpart of

Ke-pin

or whether t

lay

outside

the

Kushana rontiers.

The latter

supposition s supportedby the

evi-

dence alreadynoted

for the

locationof Zabulistan

during the

early

Islamicperiod, with its centeraroundGhazni, and the close corre-

spondence f

its borders

with those given

for

Arachosia y Ptolemy n

the

second

centuryA.D. In the

deltaof the

lower Indus

theoverlordship

of

the Kushanas ame

to be

recognized,but

it does not appear

o have

been

effectively

xercised.

On the

basisof the

available vidence

he frontiers

f the Kushana

Empiretoward Iran, at

least

until the

close of the Parthian

period,

cannot

be extended to

include

more than Bactria

proper,the

Paro-

pamisadae f

Bamian,

and,possibly, he

Arachosia f

Ghazniwith its

extension ast

into the

Indusvalley.To a

remarkably

losedegree his

western

boundaryapproximates

hat of the

Yavanakingdoms

of the

East at the

death of

Eucratidesabout

I55

B.C. The

changesin this

frontier

during the

interveningperiod

were

limited largely

to the

successive oss

and

reconquestof these

same three

areas of central

Afghanistan32

ROBERT

H.

MCDOWELL.

University

of Michigan.

31

As Konow

states (p.

3I),

as

against

Rapson

(Cam.

Hist.

India, I,

584), it

was

Kadphises

I

rather

than

Kadphises

II

who took

Taxila,

which

was

east

of

the

Indus

and

ten

miles

northwest of

Rawal Pindi.

Rapson

was led

into

this error

by his

failure to

realize

that

Ke-pin

included

all

of

Gandhara.

T'ien-tok,

equivalent

to the

kingdom of

the

House of

Euthydemus,

fell to

the

second of

the

Kushana line.

32

The author

regrets that this

article

was

completed

prior

to

the

publication

of

two

important works: W. W. Tarn, The Greeksin Bactria & India (New York, 1938), and

W.

M.

McGovern,

The

Early

Empires

of

Central

Asia

(Chapel

Hill,

1939).

AM. HIST.

REV.,

VOL.

XLIV.-55

the indo-parthian frontier-robert h. mcdowell

Documents