V. Methodology and Terminology
1. Methodological Approach
This thesis approaches the coin evidence within an overall historical framework, identifying the transitions in iconography and inscriptions and understanding these changes in the political and religious context of the period. The field of numismatics draws on a variety of disciplines such as history, archaeology, linguistics and religious studies in order to reconstruct historical context. The information gained through the study of coins and the application of further evidence (e.g. primary archaeological sources and secondary literary accouns) can help to reconstruct the political and religious ideologies across this large region.
The first chapter of this thesis examines the origins of the Parthian Empire, which date back to the middle of the 3rd century BC. The beginnings of
the Arsacid dynasty as a nomadic power in the north-eastern satrapy of Parthia have been largely reconstructed from the secondary written accounts of the Gareco-Roman world. The narratives in these texts have informed our modern understanding of how this nomadic tribe transitioned into ruling power, governing over cities and settlements. These texts, however, principally reflect the reception of the Arsacid dynasty in the ancient world through the eyes of the Graeco-Roman observers. A comparative study of the literary accounts of Han dynasty in China helps to balance out the perspectives of these secondary sources from the western sphere. Furthermore, by examining the primary archaeological evidence that has been unearthed on the periphery of the so- called civilised world (as defined in the western sources), as well as material excavated from sites further afield in the nomadic sphere, a more complete picture can be drawn concerning the cultural background of these regions – namely, the Parthian satrap and the Scythian territories to the north. The primary evidence records the interactions with imperial administrations, provincial institutions and local communities (both settled and migratory) that were carried out here.
Discussion on this theme of the Arsacid nomadic origins presents various issues concerning methodology and terminology. For the latter, it is important to define what is meant by terms such as ‘nomadic’ and ‘Scythian’, which carry very vague meanings. These terms are applied to historical peoples who are difficult to trace through space and time due to their migratory nature and the resulting effect that this has on their archaeological record. See below on how the term ‘nomadic’ will be used in this thesis.
The methodological challenges when discussing the history of the Arsacids in Parthia concern the way that the material culture is viewed in modern scholarship. The rise of the Arsacids in the 3rd century BC and the
disintegration of the Seleucid dynasty over the following two centuries mark a period of transition when Hellenism became decentralised from ideas of empire and power. This process was met with a revival of Iranian ideology under the Arsacid and Persid kings. In the examination of archaeological sites of the Hellenistic East, familiar Greek art forms have caught the attention of classical historians, and these contrast against their “exotic” geographical context far removed from the Mediterranean sphere. The approach of early scholarship has often been to isolate these Hellenistic forms, and treat them as “reified, bounded units”.243 However, a backlash against this stance later emerged in academic
studies that stemmed from a postcolonial perspective. Mairs has highlighted the problematic terminology that arose from this backlash, particularly the very modern term ‘hybridity’ – “In particular, there is a potential clash between postcolonial hybridity’s active, self-conscious negotiation between cultures (and the formation of new identities) and the efforts that we may observe in some populations of the Hellenistic Far East to defend monolithic old identities. Hybridity […] may well have been a concept that was entirely alien to the cultural outlook of the people who created and used this material culture.”244
Focusing on Greek institutions further west, Spek has considered how ethnic identities coexisted within Babylon during the Seleucid and Parthian periods. He demonstrates that Greek and Babylonian traditions remained largely
243 Mairs (2014a), 185. See also Mairs (2011b). 244 Mairs (2014a), 185.
separate: the Greek citizens held assembly in the theatre and maintained their own political institutions; a stoic school of philosophy flourished in the city; and athletic competitons were organised in the gymnasium. The Babylonian community likewise had its own political officials, scribal schools and temple institutions.245 Although these “monolithic” identities were maintained (often
coexisting, but sometimes in conflict), kings and ordinary people alike could move between these two cultural communities: Seleucid kings took part in Babylonian religious ceremonies, such as the New Year; while some Babylonian figures, who we know from the epigraphic cuneiform documents, adopted Greek names.246
How then can we understand the identity behind the so-called nomadic invaders who arrived in the Parthian satrapy in the mid-3rd century BC, and the
means by which they assumed the government of sedentary spaces? The evidence and discussion presented in Chapter One attempts to answer these questions.
The remaining three chapters of this thesis focus primarily on the numismatic evidence. Chapter Two considers the sources of inspiration behind the coin types of the Arsacid kings, and how these designs were developed throughout the 2nd and 1st centuries BC. This chapter examines the ruler’s
portrait on the obverse side of the coins, and the iconic seated archer motif that was struck onto the reverse of the principal drachm denomination. The titles and epithets that make up the coin legend are also studied. Chapters Three and Four reflect on the meaning behind the iconography on the silver and bronze coinage, and how this visual language can be interpreted from an Iranian perspective – particularly, in terms of religious ideology and the legendary history of the Arsacid dynasty. Although these religious and legendary ideas survive today in written forms that were produced under authorities from later centuries, they preserve echoes of traditions that were observed during the Parthian period.
245 Spek (2005).
Research based on coinage must address two competing models through which this evidence is interpreted by modern numismatists: the propaganda model and the function model.247 These terms can be defined as such:
‘propaganda’ being when the factors driving coin production propagate the “aspirations and claims of [a] regime” and ‘function’ being when the “same [coin] design was retained for long periods to maintain public confidence and implicitly offer reassurance about the unchanging quality of the coinage.”248
Scholars working within the numismatic discipline have, at large, converged around these two models, considering them to be relevant lenses through which to interpret coin iconography and inscriptions. However, Bracey has recently challenged this theoretical framework, arguing that these general models cannot be assumed to be satisfactory explanations for all coin design.249As will
be shown, these models were defined and developed using coin evidence that is culturally removed from Parthia. Therefore, a more nuanced approach to understanding the intentions behind Parthian coin design must be observed.
The theory that coin iconography was incentivised by propaganda stems from discussions based exclusively on Roman coinage.250 In addition, this
theoretical model was popularised during the 19th century amid the aggressive
propaganda campaigns of World War I and II. In 1917, Mattingly was first to propose that the designs executed on Roman coinage were ideologically linked with the “modern campaigns of persuasion which marked the waging of intellectual war alongside military campaigns.”251 In this frame of mind, rapid
changes in late Republican and early Imperial Roman coin design were understood as expressions of the severe political turbulence unfolding during this period: while the coins’ obverse displayed a portrait of the issuing authority, the reverse varied tremendously from assertions of an authority’s virtues, victories and public works, political slogans and divine endorsements,
247 Cribb (2009), 498-507; Bracey (forthcoming). Note, Burnett (1991), 29-41 examines these models
using different terminology: ‘monetary’, which corresponds to ‘function’, and ‘political’ corresponding to ‘propaganda’.
248 Burnett (1991), 37 and 30. 249 Bracey (forthcoming).
250 Bracey (forthcoming); Cribb (2009), 500-502. 251 Cribb (2009), 500 in summary of Mattingly (1917).
magistrates and institutions of a city, among many other strategic designs.252
The propaganda model has relied on the assumption that coin design was considered by ancient authorities as an effective form of mass media. It is important not to project these conclusions onto coinage that was struck in other geographic regions and political contexts. Bracey has criticised such an approach, stating that “it is always possible to find a ‘message’ to explain an image”, and unfortunately, “that message becomes [an interpolated] statement about historical events.”253 Naturally, a backlash against the exclusive use of this
model emerged with the recognition that Rome was a unique case study.254
In contrast, the function model highlights the practical role of coinage in occurrences of trade and exchange. Political and religious power symbols worked into the design lent authority to the coin so that it may be accepted as an authentic issue by any user of the currency. In comparison to the propaganda model, this interpretation of ancient coinage appears to render the objects as empty of meaning. However, the function model, in fact, argues that a coin’s design was “central to the transformation of coinage into money.”255 Symbols
implemented on coinage served to confirm the engrained rhetoric of an imperial power.256 In the case of Parthia, the grand titles and epithets on
coinage served to identify the king as the highest authority. The formulaic and (by later periods) unchanging assembly of these titles and epithets emphasised the continuation in the dynastic line of power. Having this official authority marked onto the coins allowed populations to trust that they were using coins manufactured to specific weights and metal content, and hence legal tender. This model presupposes that any changes to the coin design were the minimum required in order to keep the currency up to date with the portrait of the current ruler and his titles. In some cases, minor changes to a coin’s design
252 Burnett 1991, 30-31. Cribb (2009), 502 notes that although these changes are labelled as acts of
propaganda, it should be remembered that this is generally not the kind of propaganda implemented in the extreme political climate of the World Wars, and which may be defined “a systematic programme for the orchestration of public opinion.” In many cases, the design of a coin has simply been altered in order to inform the users of certain changes to the political order. 253 Bracey (forthcoming). 254 Burnett (1991), 38. 255 Bracey (forthcoming). 256 Bracey (forthcoming).
reflect the internal administration of a mint and its methods to distinguish between series of coins, or the production of various work stations operating within the same mint. This can be seen on coins of Mithradates II, for example, where a star is depicted on the king’s costume on some issues, but not on other contemporary issues from the same mint.257 By these means, trust between the issuer and the user of the coins was maintained, and the state’s economy could be administrated effectively. Despite these dominant theoretical arguments, an interpretive model for the case of Parthian coinage remains to be developed fully. It is fundamental that Parthia’s coinage is examined on its own terms and from an appropriate cultural perspective, as has been outlined and emphasised in discussions above. Although functional characteristics are apparent in the design of Parthian coinage (such as the star control mark on the king’s costume), numismatists must also consider how the mints made these functional decisions under the aegis of the Arsacid king. Moreover, it is important to think about how the political and cultural landscape of this period affected decisions to do with coin design and production. During the early Parthian period, the Arsacid kings conquered new territories in Iran and Mesopotamia, and absorbed their mints into their growing bureaucracy – mints that had been established under the Seleucid administration. The maintenance of Hellenistic elements in the denominations and coin iconography of the Arsacid kings does not necessarily indicate that the new rulers were adopting a Hellensitic ideology, but perhaps that the mints were continuing to function as they had done under the previous regime. Following the consolidation of the Parthian Empire under Mithradates II, a stronger sense of Arsacid identity had developed within the coin iconography. Particular elements from Mithradates II’s coinage (such as the depiction of the decorated Parthian costume on the obverse portrait) were adopted by vassal kings and neighbouring ruler on their own coin issues. Thus, the minting customs that had been established under the Seleucids across the region were
now largely replaced by a new Parthian imperial model (these developments are outlined further in Chapter Two). Later in the middle of the 1st century BC,
when dynastic feuds plagued the Arsacid House and when the rivalry between Parthian and Rome was becoming more acute, Arsacid coin iconography developed towards a new model in order to highlight the importance of the king. On tetradrachms minted at Seleucia-on-the-Tigris during this period, the Arsacid king was shown on both the obverse and reverse sides of the coinage; on these new reverse types, the king was often shown in the presence of a goddess receiving symbols of kingship and victory (see Chapter Three). Despite the general conservative trend in Parthian coin design,258 it is clear that the
Parthian king periodically had reason to redefine his image according to changing political needs.
Studies on Parthian coinage must focus on untangling the various strands of influence acting upon its design, whether these are to do with propaganda, function or some other underlying reason. These considerations will highlight whether changes in the coin iconography or inscriptions were motivated by external or internal factors - that is, by the political and military aggression of foreign powers, or by the Arsacids’ own triumphs, administrative needs or dynastic turmoils. 2. Terminology What is meant by ‘Political?’ While the coinage of the Arsacid dynasty presents an image of autocratic power (with the king’s portrait struck on the obverse, and his titles and epithets framing the reverse design), it is evident that the king’s will did not always determine how coinage was produced. Function and adaptability often played a significant role in the decisions concerning what to strike on a coin. Beneath the surface of their monocratic image, the Arsacid dynasty dealt with the
258 Sinisi (2008), 244, “… in the Parthian case, despite the obvious typological innovations, there is no
break of production continuity between the Greeks and their Iranian successors, the Parthian coinage evolving from gradual modifications to the Seleucid one.”
complicated dynamics of a heterogeneous empire filled with multiple political agents – these included vassal kings, rivals to the Arsacid throne, religious insitutions, military generals, administrative officials and aristocratic supporters.259 Whether this political system should be viewed as inherently
weak has been debated.260
In the eyes of its Sasanian critics, the Parthian Empire was a politically fragmented state. By tolerating a number of petty kings, the Arsacid dynasty had abandoned the principle of “one lordship”; de Jong notes, however, that the Sasanians projected this political ideology of “one lordship” (“the ideal situation in which all Iranian were ruled by a single king”) onto their defeated predecessors in order to justify the necessity for their destruction.261 The
political administration of the Parthian Empire can perhaps be compared to that of the Achaemenid kings, who also permitted provincial governors to strike their own coinage in their individual satrapies. Like the Arsacid kings, these Achaemenids also endured periods of dynastic turmoil and internal revolt. Despite these issues, Root has described the strengths of the Achaemenids’ political policy: “The central imperial policy of the Achaemenids exerted its powerful force in a direction that was dynamic - but not at all in the sense of aiming toward a goal of cultural pan-Persianism. Its pragmatic goals involved military power and control of vast resources and wealth. Its symbolic methods of facilitating these goals involved a rhetoric of unity in the maintenance and even nourishment of cultural diversity.”262
The coin evidence from Parthia demonstrates a similar political structure, in which the king’s absolute power was not necessarily exercised over decisions which could be made by other administrative bodies. In fact, a certain amount of autonomy within the empire’s mints allowed for a better functioning system that benefited the greatest number of people. This king’s absolute power, and the power of other political agents within the Parthian
259 Schmitt (1983), 197-205.
260 See recently Engels’ (2011) discussion of the feudalistic character of the Parthian Empire. 261 de Jong (2008), 19.
Empire (whether vassal rulers, mint officials, etc.) to influence coin design were not mutually exclusive, but underline the intricacies that must be taken into account in this examination of Arsacid political ideology. What is meant by Religious? Two points must be made with regard to the term ‘religion’ as it is used in this thesis: firstly, although a consciousness of Hellenistic religion must be maintained throughout this research on coin design, the main religious undercurrents that will be examined will be from Iranian traditions. This is not to ignore the influence of Hellenism in an empire which inherited large populations of ethnic Greeks and was also visibly inspired by their predecessor’s coin artistry, but rather to focus on the under-examined Iranian religious perspective.
Secondly, it is important to keep in mind the various issues concerning the study of Iranian religion during the Parthian period, when rituals were principally performed orally. The a-historical and non-absolute nature of the Mazdaen religion of this period has been outlined in the discussion above. It is generally accepted that the religion of the Parthians cannot be easily measured against the canonised religion that emerged out of the Persid tradition centuries after the demise of the Arsacid dynasty (and which underlines the written version of the Avesta that survives today). Similar issues are presented in studies of Achaemend religion. Henkelman calls for a “model that stresses a basic unity while admitting diversity and evolutionary development”; however, “as a result of the latter, the definition of ‘Zoroastrianism’ is becoming wider in recent syntheses. The drawback of this is that a statement like ‘the Achaemenids were Zoroastrians’ tends to become meaningless.”263 Zaehner
similarly notes, “Unless we are careful to define our terms, we cannot speak of Zoroastrianism as a single religion.”264 263 Henkelman (2005), 142. 264 Zaehner (1961), 22.
In this thesis, the term ‘Zoroastrianism’ has been avoided in order to maintain a separation from the more fixed Zoroastrian religion of the Sasanian period. Instead, the religion of the Arsacid kings is generally described as ‘Mazdaean’. Although the research aims of this thesis partly lie in extracting Iranian religious meaning from Parthian coin design, this must be done with caution in order not to create the impression of a systematised set of beliefs. It should be stated that any religious meaning mined from the coinage is demonstrative of ideological undercurrents in Parthian culture, and moreover, ideological undercurrents that specifically relate to kingship. Since the Arsacids did not enforce a centralised religion across the many peoples of their empire, the role of the Arsacids’ personal religion served to support their legitimacy as