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

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ “Seleucus chose to set up the centre of his power in Babylonia, thus clearly declaring . . . that his priorities were not located on the Mediterranean. This represents an indisputable continuity with the Achaemenid period.”¹¹ While there has been much discussion about Sherwin-White and Kuhrt’s book and its conclusions, the fundamental thesis about the importance and centrality of the area of the Fertile Crescent for the Seleucid realm is especially noteworthy.¹² And in this context, Mesopotamia—whether as a “new Macedonia” or as the heart of a new “eastern empire”—will have taken pride of place.

      Strabo described northern Mesopotamia as “quite fertile” (16.1.23), but it was southern Mesopotamia—that is, Babylonia—that, according to Strabo, was a particularly rich agricultural area and quite populous (16.1.14, 15.3.5). Trade was also a significant revenue source for Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia, after all, was a crossroads between the Mediterranean and the Iranian plateau as well as the Persian Gulf. Not surprisingly, important transit routes—both east-west and north-south—crisscrossed the region.¹³ But here a caveat is in order: we have relatively little direct literary information about travel routes in and through Mesopotamia during the Hellenistic period. If the direct literary evidence for Hellenistic routes in this region is sparse, we can look backward and forward to try to get some idea of the situation as it existed both before and after. Of course in doing so we must remain aware that over time—because of, for example, a changed geopolitical environment or new trading patterns—the routes themselves could change. Let us first review briefly the evidence for trade routes to and through Mesopotamia in the periods before and after the Hellenistic age.

      There is cuneiform evidence from the second and first millennia B.C. for trade routes in Mesopotamia.¹⁴ In this connection, A. L. Oppenheim has suggested that the embarkation point for Euphrates river traffic originating on the Mediterranean coast was Emar in the second millennium and possibly Carchemish during the first.¹⁵ In the neo-Assyrian period a road ran west from Nisibis to Gozan and Karrhai and then on to Arpad in north Syria. Another road ran south from Nisibis along the Khabour River and joined the road along the Euphrates to Babylon.¹⁶ We also have some information about the Persian Royal Road system. The exact route of the great Persian Royal Road from Sardis to Susa is still unclear. Depending on whether one adheres to the “northern route” or the “southern route” hypothesis, the road will apparently have crossed the Euphrates either at SAMOSATA or (the later) SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma.¹⁷ In addition to the great road, there were, of course, other routes. For example, an Aramaic document provides information about an itinerary that encompassed travel from Arbela to Damascus.¹⁸

      Strabo, who lived in the latter part of the first century B.C./early first century A.D., described a route from Syria to Seleukeia and Babylon that crossed the Euphrates near ANTHEMOUSIAS.¹⁹ From the Parthian period we get information for transit routes from Isidore of Charax, who apparently lived in the early first century A.D. He described a caravan route that ran southward from Zeugma to ANTHEMOUSIAS, ALAGMA, and ICHNAI and then down along the Euphrates to Seleukeia on the Tigris.²⁰ In the later Roman period we find evidence in, among others, Ptolemy, the Tabula Peutingeriana, and the Geographer of Ravenna.²¹ The sum total of these various sources indicates the existence of an extensive network of land and riverine (in particular, the Euphrates) routes throughout Mesopotamia both before and after and presumably, therefore, during the Hellenistic period.

      In the fifth and fourth centuries the major crossing of the Euphrates for routes originating on the Mediterranean coast was apparently at Thapsakos (the precise location of which is still a matter of discussion).²² From there caravan routes proceeded eastward across Mesopotamia to the Tigris or southward on (or along) the Euphrates to Babylon. Herodotus (1.185, 194), for example, mentions the transport of jars of Phoenician wine—among other products—down the Euphrates (though he does not specifically mention Thapsakos).²³

      In 437/6 B.C. the Athenian Diotimos sailed to Cilicia on his way to Susa. From Cilicia he apparently traveled overland to the Euphrates, sailed downstream on the Euphrates, and then proceeded on to Susa.²⁴ Thapsakos is where Cyrus the Younger and the 10,000 Greek mercenaries crossed the Euphrates in 401 B.C. on their way to Babylon.²⁵ In 396, when Conon wanted to have an audience with the Persian king, he traveled overland from Cilicia to Thapsakos and then proceeded by boat down the Euphrates to Babylon (Diod. 14.81.4). When Alexander was pursuing Darius he crossed the Euphrates at Thapsakos and then continued eastward to Arbela (Arr. 3.7.1). And in 324 B.C., when the Macedonian king wanted boats brought from Phoenicia to Babylon, he had them broken up and transported overland to Thapsakos. They were then reassembled and sailed downstream on the Euphrates to Babylon (Arr. 7.19.3). In the Hellenistic period, SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma emerged as an important city and apparently supplanted Thapsakos as the primary crossing.²⁶ A useful source in this regard is Polybius, who records Antiochos III’s pursuit of Molon in 221 B.C. The king crossed the Euphrates—apparently at Seleukeia—and then marched eastward to ANTIOCH in Mygdonia (Polyb. 5.43, 51). Coming down to the first century B.C., we also know that in his pursuit of the Parthians, Crassus crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma (Plutarch Crassus 19).

      If there is little direct literary evidence for Hellenistic roads, we can deduce the existence of certain routes by plotting out the locations of the various settlements. For example, a glance at a map confirms the existence of a string of settlements—EDESSA/ANTIOCH on the Kallirhoe, KARRHAI, NIKEPHORION, and ANTIOCH in Mygdonia—running eastward toward the Tigris from SELEUKEIA on the Euphrates/Zeugma. On both banks of the Euphrates (that is, in both Syria and Mesopotamia) we find a series of settlements beginning with SAMOSATA in the north and ending with SELEUKEIA on the Tigris. And various settlements east and south of Seleukeia connected it with the overland routes eastward to Susiana and beyond or southward, to the Persian Gulf.

      While we distinguish between Syria and Mesopotamia, it is useful to bear in mind that in antiquity “Syria” could be used in a larger sense to designate an area that included regions east of the Euphrates. Strabo (16.1.1–2), for example, mentioned that historically the name “Syria” included Babylonia. And Stephanos (s.v.) said that EDESSA and ANTHEMOUSIAS—which were, of course, located in Mesopotamia—were located in Syria.²⁷

      Seleucid policy in (northern) Mesopotamia was quite similar to that encountered in Syria—namely, fill the region with Graeco-Macedonian settlers and settlements. As Rostovtzeff observed, “Syria and Mesopotamia were to be made a second Macedonia, but a Macedonia of cities and fortresses, not of tribes and villages.”²⁸ And like Syria, Mesopotamia was filled by Seleukos I with settlements that in most cases took their names from Greece and Macedonia (App. Syr. 57).

      We may briefly review the history of Mesopotamia after the death of Alexander. Here it is useful to bear in mind that Mesopotamia, “the land between the rivers,” was really two extensive regions: the northern part, ancient Assyria; and the southern, Babylonia.²⁹

      After the conference at Triparadeisos in Syria in 321 B.C., Amphimachos received Mesopotamia; and Seleukos, Babylonia.³⁰ The former was an ally of Eumenes of Cardia.³¹ The death of Eumenes after his defeat at the battle of Gabiene at the hands of Antigonos Monophthalmos in 316/5 B.C. significantly changed the geopolitical situation in Mesopotamia.³² After the battle, Antigonos seized Babylonia from Seleukos; he then appointed Peithon son of Agenor satrap of Babylonia and possibly Mesopotamia as well.³³ Northern Mesopotamia remained under the hegemony of Antigonos, but Babylonia returned to Seleukos after he recaptured it in a daring raid in 312 B.C.³⁴ Antigonos continued to fight in Babylonia until c. 308, when, defeated by Seleukos, he retired from the region and left it under the control of the latter.³⁵ From this point until the battle of Ipsos the region was apparently divided: although the boundary between the two cannot be precisely determined, it would appear that Antigonos controlled northern Mesopotamia, and Seleukos, the southern part.³⁶

      It is worth noting that despite the fact that Antigonos controlled northern Mesopotamia СКАЧАТЬ