The article discusses the question of whether the last Seleucid satrap of Parthia, Andragoros, or the leader of Parnoi, Arshak, was the creator of the Parthian state. Based on the analysis of the epitome of Justin, the author comes to the conclusion that Andragoros remained loyal to the Seleucids until the very end, and independent Parthia arose due to the capture of the satrapy by Arshak.

Key words: Andragoros, Arshak, Parthia, Justin.

Among researchers of early Parthian history, it is widely believed that the Parthian state arose due to the deposition of the satrap of Parthia Andragora from the Seleucid empire and only then fell into the hands of the leader of the Iarnae Arshak I, who became the founder of the Arsacid dynasty. However, how well-founded is this point of view? The epitome of Pompey Trogus ' Historiae Philippicae, written by Justin, which is the only narrative source that mentions Andragorus, says literally the following:: "After him (Antigonus - A. B.) they (Parthians - A. B.) were owned by Seleucus Nicator, and then by Antiochus and his heirs. From his great-grandson Seleucus, they were first deposited during the First Punic War in the consulship of Lucius Manlius Vulson and Marcus Atilius Regulus. The dissensions between the two brother tsars gave this apostasy impunity: Seleucus and Antiochus, who missed (the opportunity. - AB) to punish those who were postponed while they were trying to wrest the royal power from each other... At this time there was Arsaces, a man of unknown origin, but of proven prowess. He usually lived by robbing and looting. When he received the news that Seleucus had been defeated by the Gauls in Asia, he freed himself from the fear of the king, attacked the Parthians with a band of robbers, defeated their ruler Andragoros, and, having killed him, seized power over the people."1
Historians of the mid-second half of the nineteenth century simply cited this account of Justin in the relevant parts of their works, while referring to Andragoros as the Macedonian governor of Parthia (Droysen, 1877, p. 360; Rawlinson, 1873, p. 43; Gutschmid, 1888, p.31). However, after the Amu Darya hoard, which included gold and silver coins with the legend ANAPATOPOT, fell into the hands of researchers at the turn of the 1870s and 1880s, the understanding of this passage gradually began to change. Because in the narrative tradition, along with Andragorus, the contemporary

1 Just. XLI.4.3-4, 6-7. Post hunc a Nicatorc Sclcuco ас mox ab Antiocho ct succcssoribus cius posscssi, a cuius proncpotc Sclcuco primum dcfcccrc primo Punico bcllo, L. Manlio Vulsonc M. Atilio Rcgulo consulibus. Huius dcfcctionis inpunitatcm illis duorum fratrum rcgum, Sclcuci ct Antiochi, discordia dcdit, qui dum inviccm cripcrc sibi rcgnum volunt, pcrscqui dcfcctorcs omiscrunt...Erat со tempore Arsaccs, vir sicut inccrtac originis, ita virtutis expertac. Hic solitus latrociniis ct rapto vivcrc accepta opinionc Scleucum a Gallis in Asia victum, solutus regis mctu, cum pracdonum manu Parthos ingrcssus pracfectum corum Andragoran opprcssit sublatoquc со impcrium gentis invasit.

page 15
Arshak the conqueror of Parthia (Just. XLI.4.7), another Andragoros was mentioned — the satrap of Parthiene under Alexander (Just. XII. 4. 12), researchers, following Occam's command not to produce a number of entities without sufficient grounds, began to decide the question: which of the two Andragoros belong to the found coins.

P. Gardner, after much hesitation [Gardner, 1879, p. 3-4; Gardner, 1881, p. 8], came to the conclusion that the coins of Andragorus belong to the former Seleucid governor and, therefore, indicate that he achieved independence from the Seleucids [Gardner, 1886, p.XIX] 2. However, this point of view was far from the only one. Thus, A. Cunningham believed that the coins belonged to Andragorus, Alexander's satrap [Cunningham, 1881, p. 172]. B. Head preferred to leave the question open [Head, 1911, p. 825]. A. K. Markov attributed the gold coins of Andragorus to Alexander's viceroy, and the silver coins to Arshak's victim [Markov, 1892, p. 4] E. Rapson actually repeated the opinion of A. Cunningham [Rapson, 1893, p. 204]. G. Howorth first attributed the coins of Andragoros to the time of Alexander the Great [Howorth, 1890, p. 38-39], and then came to the conclusion that they are modern forgeries; Andragoros, being a Seleucid satrap, could not have had the right to mint coins. coinage [Howorth, 1905, p. 223-224].V. Ros believed that the coins of Andragorus belonged to the satrap of Alexander the Great [Wroth, 1903, p. XXX, p. 1]. Only J. Hill decided to break out of the vicious circle of two candidates and attributed the Andragora coins to North-Eastern Persia, dating them to the end of the IV-beginning of the III century BC [Hill, 1919, p. 32; Hill, 1922, p. CLIX-CLX, 193].

However, over time, the hypothesis of P. Gardner, supported by the authority of W. Wilcken (1894, p. 2133) has become more and more popular among researchers of the Hellenistic East, and despite some objections (Tarn, 1932, p. 575; Debevoise, 1969, p. 9, p. 37), 3 it currently occupies a dominant position (Bevan, 1902, p. 37). 284; Beloch, 1925, S. 670, anm. 2; Rostovtzeff, 1941, p. 430; Bengtson, 1944, S. 55; Altheim, 1948, S. 17; Wolski, 1950, p. 113-114; Wolski, 1956-57, p. 44-45; Bokshchanin, 1960, p. 177, 180; Diakonov, 1961, p. 180; Schmitt, 1964, S. 62; Le Rider, 1965, p. 299, 313-314; Will, 1966, p. 253; Colledge, 1967, p. 25; Fry, 1972, p. 245; Ghirshman, 1974, p. 4; Koshelenko, 1979, p. 266; Bivar, 1983(1), p 28-29; Bivar, 1983(2), p. 187; Frye, 1984, p. 163; Musti, 1984(1), p. 214; Diakonov and Zeimal, 1988, p. 8-14; Bernard, 1994, p. 488; Rtveladze, 1995, p. 182; Zeimal, 1998, pp. 341-342; Olbrycht, 1998, pp. 62-63; Koshelenko, Gaibov, Bader, 1999, pp. 294; Luther, 1999, S. 9; Lerner, 1999, p. 23; Houghton, Lorber, 2002, p. XXXV, 165-166, 230; Gaslain, 2002, p. 6; Koshelenko, 2004, p. 219; Bivar, 2005, p. 212-213; Errington and Curtis, 2007, p. 43; Widemann, 2009, p. 47]. It should be noted, however, that this was facilitated not so much by the strength of the arguments put forward by P. Gardner, but by the clarification of the complete unreliability of Justin's data on the noble Persian Andragoras, who allegedly ruled Parthia under Alexander the Great and became the ancestor of the Parthian kings [Droysen, 1877, p. 360, anm. 2; Gutschmid, 1888, S. 31].

As I have already noted, the coins of Andragorus have nothing to do with the eponymous satrap of Parthiene and were minted in Bactria at the end of the IV century BC [Balakhvantsev, 2000, p.11-12; Balakhvantsev, 2010(2), p. 538-541]. Naturally, they can in no case be involved in resolving the issue of the status of Parthiena on the eve of Arshak's invasion. This, of course, does not mean that one should automatically return to the views on Andragora that I. Droysen held. However, it is necessary to analyze the text of Justin in the most thorough way, which, oddly enough, was not done. Supporters of the version about the fall of Andrago-

2 It should be noted that P. Gardner still had some doubts about the dating of the Andragora coins. See [Gardner, 1886, p. 1], where he suggests a date of ca. 300 BC.

3 Both researchers considered Andragorus Justin sslsvkid satrap and distinguished him from Andragorus the coin issuer. O. Merkholm is no stranger to such doubts [Merkholm, 1991, p. 119-120]. See also: Mitchincr, 1975, p. 8; Holt, 1988, p.98, p. 47; Shcrwin-Whitc and Kuhrt, 1993, p. 88].

page 16
the pa simply pointed out that since Justin first mentions twice the defectio of the Parthians (XLI.4.3-4), and then the assassination of their ruler Andragoros (XLI. 4. 7), it is natural to conclude that Andragoros gained independence from the Seleucids by the time Arshak invaded [Altheim, 1948, S. 17; Wolski, 1956-57, p. 42-45; Luther, 1999, S. 7].

Unfortunately, none of the researchers mentioned above paid attention to the fact that the title of Andragorus in Justin is prefect (praefectus). In the work of Justin and the extant prologues of Pompey Trogus, the term praefectus is used only in relation to dependent rulers, such as the satrap of Sardanapalus Arbact (Just. 1.3.2, 6) , the satraps of the Achaemenids (Just. V. 1. 7; 2.5; VI.1.2; 2.11; 6.3; XI.6.15; 10.5; Trog. Prol. VI; X), the governors of Alexander the Great (Just. XII.1.4; 2.16; 4.12; 10.8; 14.4; XIII.4.19, 25; XV.4.19; Trog. Prol. XI), the Seleucid satraps (Just. XXXIX.1.8; XLI.4.5, 7) and the Parthian kings (Trog. Prol. XLII) or the rulers of Pontus (Just. XVI.4.7; XXXVIII.1.1).

Similarly, this appellative is used by other Latin authors. This is how the older contemporary of Pompey Trogus, Cornelius Nepos, refers to the Achaemenid satrap Tissaphernes (Nep. Ag. 2.3). The title praefectus is repeatedly used in the work of Curtius Rufus in relation to the satraps Darius III (Curt.V. 2. 8) and Alexander the Great (Curt.VI.4.24; VII1.3.17). Only in one instance does Cornelius Nepos use the title praefectus to refer to the diadochs of Alexander the Great in 323-316 BC (Nep. Eum. 13.3). However, for a correct understanding of this evidence, it is necessary to take into account the never-repeated duality that characterizes the position of the diadochi in this period. Indeed, after Alexander's death, the Diadochi found themselves virtually independent rulers, supported by their own troops, and formally considered only the vicegerents of the two nominal kings who had inherited the title of great Macedonian-the feeble-minded Philip Arridaeus and the infant Alexander IV. In the passage analyzed here, Cornelius Nepos pays attention only to the legal characterization of the position of the diadochi, emphasizing the evolution of their titulature from governor (praefectus) to king (rex). In general, the term praefectus was used to refer to an official who does not have sovereignty and occupies a subordinate position in relation to the central or local government [OLD s.v. praefectus].

Even more important is the reference of Justin, which is usually ignored in the literature (XLI.4.7) on Arshak's motives for invading Parthia, namely that the Parnoi chieftain did so "after freeing himself from the fear of the king "(solutus regis metu). If Andragorus is considered a rebellious satrap who had independence at the time of Arshak's invasion, then it is completely unclear what is the connection between the defeat of Seleucus II at the Battle of Ancyra (c. 238 BC) and Arshak's invasion of Parthia? Indeed, in this case, the defeat of the tsar meant that the rebellious governor no longer had to fear a blow from the west and could throw all his forces against Arshak. But then the defeat of Seleucus II should have been more likely to warn Arshak against invading Parthia, and the mention of liberation from the fear of the king looks absurd in such a situation. Justin's motivation for Arshak's actions - and here he clearly follows the text of Pompey Trogus - makes sense only if Andragoros remained loyal to Seleucus II to the very end. In fact, only then did the defeat of the latter deprive the governor of the hope of receiving help from his sovereign, and Arshak could, in fact, no longer fear the king, invade Parthia.

But then what about the Parthian apostasy already mentioned above? In order to find out what lies behind defectio in reality, you should pay attention to the dating of this event. Justin dates the fall of the Parthians to the consulship of Lucius Manlius Vulson and Marcus Atilius Regulus (256 BC), which lasted at that time

4 There are only two exceptions to the Mhc: [Shcrwin-Whitc and Kuhrt, 1993, p. 88; Olbrycht, 2003, p. 72]. However, none of the above-mentioned authors drew proper conclusions from this observation.

page 17
time between the First Punic War (264-241 BC) and the reign of Seleucus II (246-226/5 BC). It is not surprising that the name "curious"is firmly established in science behind this synchronism. Numerous attempts were made to somehow bring these dates closer together. Thus, instead of Marcus Atilius Regulus, the text of Justin suggested reading the name of Gaius Atilius Regulus, who, together with Lucius Manlius Vulson, held the consulship in 250 BC [Droysen, 1877, p. 364, anm. 1; Beloch, 1925, S. 670, anm. 3; Debevoise, 1969, p. 9; Wolski, 1956-57, p. 51]. Justifying this substitution, I. Volsky points out that Marcus Atilius Regulus was only a suffect consul in 256 BC, and dates could only be given for ordinary consuls.

However, in this case, I. Volsky, like his predecessors, is clearly mistaken. Thus, Eutronius (Eutr.II.21.1) dates the Roman invasion of Africa to the consulship of Lucius Manlius Vulson and Marcus Atilius Regulus, without paying any attention to the fact that the latter was a suffect consul. Similarly, the repeatedly published building inscription of 108 BC from Campania (CIL. X. 3935 = AE 1956, 37 = AE 1957, 308 = AE 1980, 233 = AE 1996, 429 = AE 1997, 316) is dated by the consulates of Servius Sulpicius Galba and Marcus Aurelius Scaurus, while the latter He was a consul suffect, who replaced the ordinary Consul Hortensius. Other inscriptions from this year are similarly dated (CIL. X. 3776 = ILS. 3185; NdS 1921, 129).

An even more radical correction of the text was proposed by A. Luther, according to which Justin, Trogus or his original source dated the fall of the Parthians to 247 BC, or 507 AD from the foundation of Rome, but at the same time the names of censors Aulus Atilius Caiatinus and Aulus Manlius mentioned in the consular fasts under this year were mistakenly called instead of the consuls of this year Torquat (Luther, 1999, P.10-12). However, this assumption does not look convincing either. The fact is that in the text of Pompey Trogus or his Greek source, the fall of the Parthians was most likely dated to the 5th Olympiad. Let's assume that this date is the second year of the 133rd Olympiad, which corresponds to the year 507 from the foundation of Rome. Let us assume that A. Luther is correct in assuming that only the generic names of the censors, i.e. Atilius and Manlius, were given in the copy of fastus used by Trogus or his source, and that if they were carelessly copied, they became the consuls Atilius and Manlius. But then in the text of the epitome of Justin, which did not supplement, but only abridged the work of Pompey Trogus, instead of "to the consulate of Lucius Manlius Vulson and Marcus Atilius Regulus", it should have been "to the consulate of Atilius and Manlius".

It should be added that, first of all, neither interpretation destroys the "curious synchronism", since the reign of Seleucus and Callinicus began later - in 246 BC.Secondly, and this is especially important, both corrections are devoid of any textual grounds. Thus, none of the proposed corrections to the text of Justin can be considered justified. Therefore, it is not surprising that due to the complete inability to agree on such contradictory dates, most researchers chose to choose one of them. Thus, supporters of the" high "chronology place the initial phase of the Parthian fall away in the reign of Antiochus II (Bickerman, 1944, p. 80, 83; Musti, 1984(2), p. 219-220), and adherents of the" low " chronology transfer the entire process to the first years of the reign of Seleucus II (Wolski, 1996, p. 167-178). Disputes between these two areas continue to this day.

Meanwhile, a source that can shed light on this confusing problem has remained out of the field of view of most researchers. We are talking about the XIII Great Rock Edict of King Ashoka of India from the Mauryan dynasty, in which he, in particular, reports on the embassy he sent to the Greek kings Antiochus, Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magus and Alexander (Vigasin, 2007, pp. 95-103). It is clear that if India's neighbors had been independent Bactria and Parthia at the time of the embassy's departure, Ashoka would not have failed to make their rulers happy with the story of his victory.

5 In Hellenistic historiography, the calculation of the Olympiads became generally accepted due to Timsus of Tauromsnia (late 4th - first half of the 3rd century BC).

page 18
"victory of the dharma". However, the absence in the text of the edict of the slightest hint of a visit by the Indian embassy to Bactria and Parthia clearly indicates that both these areas were still Seleucid satrapies. Thus, determining the date of the "Great Embassy to the West" simultaneously gives us a terminus post quern for the emergence of new states in Central Asia and Iran. I believe that Ashoka's embassy to the Hellenistic monarchs could have taken place only in 252-249 BC, and this seriously undermines the position of supporters of the "high" chronology [Balakhvantsev, 2010, p. 17].

The information available to date on the military actions of Antiochus II also does not allow us to accept an early date for the fall of Parthia from the Seleucid empire. Thus, in the spring of 251 BC, Antiochus II returned from the eastern satrapies, 6 and in the mid-summer of 250 BC, he marched with his troops from Antioch, 7 and moved to the north-west of Asia Minor and Thrace [Balakhvantsev, 2011, pp. 88-89]: the Seleucid army threatened Byzantium (Memn. FGrH 434 F15), and also made a campaign against the Thracian tribe Astov (Polyaen. IV. 16; IGBR I 2 388). Naturally, if the fall of Parthia had occurred around 250 BC, Antiochus II would have moved east instead of west.

However, there is no need to reject any of the dates given by Justin. It should only be remembered that the extant text of Justin is an abridgment of the much more detailed narrative of Pompey Trogus. By reducing the work of his predecessor, the epitomator not only removed "superfluous" information, from his point of view, but also resorted to the most real "compression" of people and events. A striking example demonstrating this feature of the author's method is the figure of King Eumenes of Bithynia (Just. XXVII.3.1, 5-6), constructed by Justin from two rulers: Eumenes of Pergamum and Zielus of Bithynia. However, the epitomator did not rest on this and attributed to this character the deeds committed by the king of Pergamum Attalus I. Similarly, the" curious synchronism "in the story of the emergence of independent Parthia appeared as a result of the" compression " produced by Justin, but no longer of people, but of events mentioned in the work of Pompey Trogus. At the same time, the entire history of the loss of the satrapy of Parthia by the Seleucids was reduced by the epitomator to the concept of defectio. Thus, the use of this expression can in no way serve as proof of the fall of Andragoros from the Seleucid empire.

In conclusion, I will try to give a hypothetical reconstruction of the events that took place in Parthiene during the 50-30 years of the third century BC.e. In 256 BC, during the ongoing Second Syrian War (260-253 BC), a revolt against the Seleucid rule took place in Parthiene (defectio of Justin). There is no doubt that this revolt was suppressed, and perhaps it was after it that Andragoros was appointed satrap of Parthiene. In the 1940s of the third century. The situation in Parthiene sharply worsened due to the appearance on its northern borders of the nomadic tribe of Parnae, who settled in the Okha Valley (Sumbara-Atreka). Meanwhile, disturbing news was coming from the West. First, during the Third Syrian War, Ptolemy III's forces occupied Syria and reached Babylon 8. Then the "War of Brothers" broke out. Around 238 BC, Seleucus II suffered a crushing defeat at Ancyra (Asia Minor) from his brother Antiochus Gia-

6 In February-March 251 BC, Antiochus II set out from Seleucia [Sachs and Hunger, 1989, No. -251. Rev. 3]. Although in Babylonian astronomical documents Ssleukia on the Tigris is usually mentioned with an indication that it is a "royal city" [Sachs and Hunger, 1988, No. -273. A 'Rev'. 31', 35'], after the first or second mention, this indication is omitted [Sachs and Hunger, 1988, No. -273. A 'Rev'. 36']. Therefore, we can assume that in this case we are talking about the second capital of the Seleucids.

7 No later than August, this was already known in Babylon. See: [Sachs and Hunger, 1989, No. -249. A 'Rev'. 6'].

8 What I said before [Balakhvantsev, 2005, p. 57, ed. 40] the claim that Babylon was under Seleucid control in 246-245 BC is at least inaccurate. In December 246 BC, an Egyptian army laid siege to Babylon, then stormed into the city and massacred its inhabitants. In January-February 245 BC, the sslsvkid garrison held in its hands only the royal palace (VSNR 11).

page 19
rax, lost almost his entire army (Polyaen. IV. 9. 6) and was even considered dead for a time (Plut. De frat. am. 489A). In addition, between 238 and 235 BC, the king faced a major revolt in Babylonia (Sachs and Hunger, 1989, no. -237, -234). Under these conditions, the Parnoi leader Arshak, realizing that there was no one to wait for Satrap Andragoros to help, invaded Parthia and thereby laid the foundation for the future Parthian state.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

АЕ - L'annéc épigraphiquc. P.

ВСНР - Babylonian Chronicles of the Hellenistic Period / Ed. 1. Finkcl, R.J. van dcr Spck // www.livius.org

CIL - Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. Bcrolini.

FGrH - Fragmcntc dcr gricchischcn Historikcr/ Hrsg. von F. Jacoby. Berlin - Leiden, 1923.

IGBR - Inscriptioncs graccae in Bulgaria repcrtae / Ed. G. Mihailov. Sofia.

ILS- Inscriptioncs Latinac sclcctac. Bcrolini.

NdS - Notizic dcgli Scavi di Anticità. Roma.

OLD - Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.

list of literature

Balakhvantsev A. S. Coins of Andragora: who, where, when? // Eighth All-Russian Numismatic Conference. Abstracts of reports and reports, Moscow, 2000.
Balakhvantsev A. S. Riddle of Andragora / / Antiquitas aeterna. Povolzhsky antikovedcheskiy zhurnal, Issue 1. Hellenistic world: unity of diversity. Kazan; Nizhny Novgorod; Saratov, 2005.

Balakhvantsev A. S. Once again on the date of the emergence of the Parthian and Roman-Bactrian states II Ancient civilizations in the Middle East. Archeology, History, and Culture, Moscow, 2010(1).
Balakhvantsev A. S. Appendix VI. On the attribution of clay heads from Takhti-Sangin// Litvinsky B. A. Temple of Oks in Bactria (Southern Tajikistan). Vol. 3: Iskusstvo, khudozhestvennoe crafto, muzykalnye instrumenty. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 2010(2).

Balakhvantsev A. S. "New" rescript of Zisla Vifinsky / / Vestnik drevnoi istorii. 2011. № 1.

Bokshchanin A. G. Parthia i Rim. Ch. 1. Moscow: MSU Publishing House, 1960.

Vigasin A. A. Velikoe posolstvo na Zapad i khronologiya dinastii Mauryev [The Great Embassy to the West and the Chronology of the Mauryan Dynasty].
Diakonov I. M., Zsimal E. V. The ruler of Parthia Andragoros and his coins // Bulletin of Ancient History. 1988. № 4.

Dyakonov M. M. Ocherk istorii drevnego Irana [Essay on the history of ancient Iran]. Moscow: Publishing House of Eastern Literature, 1961.

Zsymal E. V. Grsko-Bactria. Parthia (III-II centuries BC) / / History of the Tajik people, vol. 1. Dushanbe, 1998.

Koshslsnko G. A. Grecheskiy polis na hellenisticheskom Vostoke [Greek Polis in the Hellenistic East]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1979.

Koshelsnko G. A. The third version of the origin of the Arshakids? // Mnemonic. Issue 3. St. Petersburg, 2004.

Koshslsnko G. A., Gaibov V. A., Badr A. N. Andragora coins as a source for the early history of Parthia.Problemy istorii, filologii, kul'tury [Problems of History, Philology, and Culture]. Moscow-Magnitogorsk, 1999. Vol. VII.

Markov A. K. Unpublished Arsacid coins. St. Petersburg, 1892.

Fry R. Nasledie Irana [Heritage of Iran], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1972.
Althcim F. Weltgeschichte Asiens im griechischen Zeitalter. Bd. II. Halle: Max Nicmeyer Vcrlag, 1948.

Bcloch K.J. Griechische Geschichte2. Bd. 4. Abt. 1. Berlin-Leipzig: Gruytcr, 1925.

Bengtson H. Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit. Bd. II. Münchcn: C.H. Beck Vcrlag, 1944.

Bernard P. L'Asic centrale ct rempire sélcucidc // Topoi. Orient - Occident. 1994. Vol. 4(2).

Bcvan E.R. The House of Seleucus. Vol. I. L.: Allen and Unwin, 1902.

Bickerman E. Notes on Selcucid and Parthian Chronology // Berytus. 1944. Vol. VIII(2).

Bivar A.D.H. The Political History of Iran under the Arsacids // The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. III(1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983(1).

Bivar A.D.H. The History of Eastern Iran // The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. III(1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983(2).

Bivar A.D. H. Andragoras: Independent Successor of the Sclcucids in Parthia // Central Asia from the Achaemenids to the Timurids: archeology, history, ethnology, culture. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of A.M. Velenitsky, St. Petersburg, 2005.
Collcdgc M.A.R. The Parthians. N.Y.-Washingtdn: Kidd, 1967.

Cunningham A. Relics from Ancient Persia in Gold, Silver, and Copper // The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. 1881. Vol. L.

page 20
Dcbcvoisc N.C. A Political History of Parthia. Chicago- London: The University of Chicago Press, 1969.

Droyscn J.G. Geschichte des Hellenismus2. Bd. III. Gotha: Perthes, 1877.

Errington E., Curtis V.S. From Persepolis to the Punjab. L.: British Museum, 2007.

Fryc R.N. The History of Ancient Iran. Münchcn: C.H. Bcck'sche Vcrlagsbuchhandlung, 1984.

Gardner P. New Coins from Bactria // The Numismatic Chronicle2. 1879. Vol. 19.

Gardner P. Coins from Central Asia // The Numismatic Chronicle3. 1881. Vol. 1.

Gardner P. The Coins of the Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India in the British Museum. L.: British Museum, 1886.

Gaslain J. Présentation historique des Parthes // Les Parthes. Dossiers d'Archéologie. 2002. № 271.

Ghirshman R. Un tétradrachmc d'Andragoras dc la collection de M. Foroughi // Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of G. With Miles. Beirut, 1974.

Gutschmid A. Geschichte Irans undseiner Nachbarländer von Alexander dem Grossen his zum Untergang der Arsaciden. Tubingen, 1888.

Head B.V. Historia Numorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911.

Hill G.F. Andragora // Atti e Memorie dell 'Institute Italiano di Numismalica. 1919. Vol. III.

Hill G.F. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia. L.: British Museum, 1922.

Holt F.L. Alexander the Great and Bactria. Leiden: Mnemosyne, 1988.

Houghton A., Lorber C. Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Pt. I. Vol.1. N.Y.-L.: American Numismatic Society, 2002.

Howorth H.H. The Initial Coinage of Parthia // The Numismatic Chronicle3. 1890. Vol. 10.

Howorth H.H. Some Notes on Coins Attributed to Parthia // The Numismatic Chronicle4. 1905. Vol. 5.

Lc Rider G. Suse sous les Séleucides et les Parthes. P.: Gcuthncr, 1965.

Lcrncr J.D. The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern Iranian Plateau: the Foundations of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria. Stuttgart: Franz Steincr Vcrlag, 1999.

Luther A. Übcrlcgungcn zur defectio dcr östlichen Satrapicn vom Sclcucidcnreich // Gottinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft. 1999. Bd. 2.

Mitchincr M. Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage. Vol. I. L.: Hawkins, 1975.

Morkholm O. Early Hellenistic Coinage: From the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamca (336-188 B.C.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Musti D. Syria and the East // The Cambridge Ancient History2. Vol. VII(1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984(1).

Musti D. Appendix. The Secession of Bactria and Parthia // The Cambridge Ancient History2. Vol. VII(1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984(2).

Olbrycht M. Parthia et ulteriores gentes: die politischen Beziehungen zwischen dem arsakidischen Iran und den Nomaden der eurasischen Steppen. Münchcn: tuduv-Vcrl.-Gcs., 1998.

Olbrycht M. Parthia and Nomads of Central Asia // Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte. Heft 12. Mittcilungcn des SFB "Diffcrcnz und Integration", 5: Militär und Staatlickleit. Hallc/Saalc, 2003.

Rapson E.J. Markoff's Coins of the Arsacidac // The Numismatic Chronicle3. 1893. Vol. 13.

Rawlinson G. The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy or the Geography, History and Antiquities of Parthia. L.: Hudson, 1873.

Rostovtzcff M. The Social and Economic History of Hellenistic World. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941.

Rtvcladze E.V. Parthia and Bactria // In the Land of the Gryphons: Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity. Fircnzc, 1995.

Sachs A.J., Hunger H. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. 1. Wicn: Vcrlag dcr Östcrrcichischcn Akadcmic dcr Wisscnschaftcn, 1988.

Sachs A.J., Hunger H. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. II. Wicn: Vcrlag dcr Östcrrcichischcn Akadcmic dcr Wisscnschaftcn, 1989.

Schmitt H.H. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos' des Grossen und seiner Zeit. Wiesbaden: F. Steincr Verlag, 1964.

Shcrwin-White S., Kuhrt A. From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. Berkeley Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993.

Tarn W.W. Parthia // The Cambridge Ancient History1. Vol. IX. Cambridge: University Press, 1932.

Widcmann F. Les successeurs d'Alexandre en Asie centrale et leur héritage culturel. P.: Rivcncuvc, 2009.

Wilckcn U. Andragoras // Pauly's Real-Encyklopädieder classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ncuc Bcarbeitung begonnen von G. Wissowa. Hrsg. von W. Kroll. Hbbd. 2. Stuttgart, 1894.

Will É. Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (323-30 av. J.C.)1. T. 1. Nancy: Publ. par la Faculté des letters et des sciences humaines dc l' Univ. de Nancy, 1966.

Wolski J. Lc problèmc d'andragoras / / Izvestiya pa Bulgarian Archaeological Institute. Vol. 16. Ch. I Sbornik Gavril Katsarov. Sofia, 1950.

Wolski J. The Decay of the Iranian Empire of the Sclcucids and the Chronology of the Parthian Beginnings // Berytus. 1956-1957. Vol. XII(1).

Wolski J. Quclqucs rcmarqucs conccrnant la chronologic des débuts dc l'Etat parthc// Iranica Antiqua. Vol. XXXI. 1996.

Wroth W. Catalogue of the Coins of Parthia. L.: British Museum, 1903.

page 21

Permanent link to this publication: