The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India. Getzel M. Cohen

to Bactria (roughly, modern Uzbekistan and northern Afghanistan) and India (southern Afghanistan and Pakistan) in the southeast. Just as the British in the nineteenth century, the Russians in the twentieth century, and the Americans and their allies in the early twenty-first century, so the Seleucids in antiquity had difficulty controlling this region.

      Despite the fact that the founder of the dynasty, Seleukos I Nikator, had married a Bactrian woman, Apama, the daughter of Spitamenes (Arr. 7.4.6), the Seleucids found it difficult to hold on to their possessions in central Asia. Already at the end of the fourth century B.C. the Seleucids were losing territory in the east that they had inherited from Alexander. As a result of his war (305–303 B.C.) and subsequent treaty with Chandragupta, Seleukos ceded territory to the Indian king on terms of intermarriage and the receipt of five hundred elephants.¹¹⁶ The precise extent of the territory ceded by Seleukos is not clear. A “maximalist” view claims that Seleukos yielded a large part of the territory west and north of the Indus, including Arachosia, Gedrosia, Parapamisadai, and possibly even Aria as far as Herat. Among other things, the discovery at Kandahar—which was located in the center of Arachosia—of two inscriptions recording a Greek translation of the edicts of the Mauryan emperor Asoka provides support for the maximalist view.¹¹⁷ A “minimalist” view argues that the territory ceded to Chandragupta was essentially limited to the Indus valley and neighboring regions; in other words, it did not include Arachosia.¹¹⁸ In any event, it would appear that once the treaty with Chandragupta was formalized, Seleucid rule over the eastern territories still under their control (temporarily) stabilized; the Seleucids then maintained control of these areas until the middle of the third century B.C.¹¹⁹

      The situation drastically changed in the course of the third quarter of the century (i.e., from c. 250 to c. 220 B.C.) . This was a period of disintegration and collapse all along the eastern (and western) frontier regions of the empire. Of course, it is during this very period that the Seleucids faced serious challenges elsewhere, both inside and beyond the borders of their empire: dynastic disputes on the one hand and chronic warfare with the Ptolemies on the other. It will not be surprising, therefore, to see various centrifugal pressures exploding at this time. In some cases circumstances in these regions reflected the pressures and aspirations of native dynasts and people; in other cases they were the result of adventurous and opportunistic Graeco-Macedonian governors establishing their own independent fiefdoms. But whatever the circumstances, the net result for the Seleucid monarchs was the same: these territories slipped away from Seleucid control. I have already mentioned the rise of the Parthian dynasty and the loss of Parthia and Hyrcania in the period after the mid-third century B.C., which took place in the northeastern part of the Iranian plateau. About the same time, in the eastern region, Diodotos, the Seleucid “governor of the thousand cities of Bactria” (Justin 41.4), removed himself from Seleucid control.¹²⁰ By the latter part of the third century B.C. Bactria had been consolidated under the authority of Euthydemos. The treaty he signed with Antiochos III in 206 B.C. gave him a free hand over this region.¹²¹

      Settlements Founded by the Seleucids and/or the Graeco-Bactrian Kings

      The Seleucid presence in central Asia is reflected in the names of various settlements: for example, ANTIOCH in Margiana, the refounded ALEXANDREIA, and ANTIOCH in Scythia, possibly a refounded ALEXANDREIA. Another Seleucid foundation, probably in Aria, was SOTEIRA.¹²² The relatively few Seleucid foundations in the region are, undoubtedly, a reflection of the short and tenuous nature of Seleucid rule there. They also reflect strategic priorities: a glance at a map indicates quite clearly that Seleukos I and Antiochos I focused most of their settlement founding activity on the central and western regions of their vast empire rather than on the eastern periphery. One sees the result of this rather clearly if one considers Appian’s enumeration of the settlements founded by Seleukos I (Syr. 57). Appian says that as a result of this activity, Syria and the “barbarous regions of upper Asia” were filled with towns bearing Greek and Macedonian names. He then proceeds to give a list of town names in Syria and Parthia. In addition he mentions one settlement in India (ALEXANDROPOLIS), one in Scythia (ALEXANDRESCHATA), one in Mesopotamia (NIKEPHORION), and one in Armenia (NIKOPOLIS). Notably absent from Appian’s list are settlements in central Asia (except for SOTEIRA, KALLIOPE, CHARIS, HEKATOMPYLOS, and ACHAIA in Parthia). Fraser provided another explanation for the relative absence of evidence for Seleucid settlements in the region: he suggested that the lists of Alexandreias in the various recensions of the Alexander Romance and in Stephanos were derived from a lost Liber de Urbibus Alexandri that was composed in ALEXANDREIA near Egypt during the third century B.C.—that is, while it was still under Ptolemaic rule. He further suggested that the Liber de Urbibus Alexandri served a propaganda purpose in the struggle between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies by attributing to Alexander settlements that, in fact, had been established by the Seleucids.¹²³ Thus, he mentions ALEXANDREIA in Margiana (ANTIOCH in Margiana), ALEXANDREIA ΠΡΟΣΠΕΡΣΑΣ (ANTIOCH in Persis), ALEXANDREIA on the Tigris River (SELEUKEIA on the Tigris), ALEXANDREIA near Babylon (SELEUKEIA near the Hedyphon?), ALEXANDREIA ΕΠΙ ΣΟΥΣΟΙΣ (SELEUKEIA on the Eulaios), ALEXANDREIA in Scythia (ANTIOCH in Scythia), and ALEXANDREIA in Mesopotamia (ANTIOCH in Mygdonia).¹²⁴ Other settlements, such as DEMETRIAS in Arachosia as well as EUKRATIDEIA, would have been founded by Graeco-Bactrian dynasts. There are, in addition, other settlements with Greek toponyms about which rather little is known and which cannot, therefore, be ascribed with certainty to any particular monarch or dynasty. Despite that, we can, at the very least, see them as further proof of a Greek presence in the region.

      INDIA

      In the context of Hellenistic history the toponymic term “India” is used, somewhat arbitrarily, to refer to an area that essentially encompasses modern-day Pakistan and southern Afghanistan—namely, the area roughly between the Hindu Kush and the Indus/Hyphasis River valleys.¹²⁵ During the Hellenistic period both history and geography conspired to keep this region far removed from Greek lands and areas of intensive Greek habitation. The area had been traversed by Alexander, and then briefly came under the control of Seleukos I Nikator. However, as I have mentioned, already at the end of the fourth century B.C. Seleukos I was forced to cede the region to the Mauryan Chandragupta. Subsequently, the loss of Parthia and Hyrcania to the Parthian dynasty in the period after the mid-third century B.C., and the ascent of Bactria around the same time, effectively removed these regions from Seleucid control and thus further removed northwest India from regular overland contact with the rest of the Seleucid empire.¹²⁶ As for Mauryan rule, it lasted until the early second century B.C., when it was overthrown by Pushyamitra. The collapse of the Mauryan dynasty essentially created a vacuum into which the Graeco-Bactrians moved. By invading India and establishing power there they effectively extended—at this relatively late date in the Hellenistic period—a Greek presence into India.

      As is the case for Bactria, the number of likely Hellenistic settlements whose exact location can be fixed is disappointingly small. For example, scholars have not been able to identify the precise site of any of the Alexandreias that were located in India. In a number of other instances—for example, BOUKEPHALA and NIKAIA—the sources point to a likely general area; nevertheless, it has not yet been possible to fix their exact site. In still other instances, where we can identify the location of a particular town—for example, PUSHKALAVATI and TAXILA—we cannot definitely affirm that this had been the site of a Hellenistic foundation.

      As with Bactria, the extant literary sources provide only a fragmentary account of the history of the region when it was under Greek hegemony. Most of the kings and subkings are known to us only through coins that have survived. But even if the numismatic evidence does not allow a complete reconstruction of the history of the region, it does—by its very abundance and high quality—call attention to the region’s wealth.

      1. See, for example, Herzfeld, Empire 313–17; Musti in CAH² 7:183–84; Sullivan, Royalty 96–105, 280–91, et passim; Schottky, Media 76–231; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 190–97; P. Bernard, Topoi Supplément 1 (1997) 181–85; Mittag, Antiochos 296–98 et passim; and M.-L. Chaumont, Syria 70 (1993) 431–41; R. H. Hewsen, REArm 13 (1979) 77–97 (on Armenian historical geography). On the alleged Thessalian origins of Armenia see Strabo 11.14.12–14 (“There is an ancient