Volume XLIV] ly, I939 [Number 4

Xterit'an WSortfcal Ztbte

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 representin 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
reflectthe 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 Parthian Iran, 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 subject of 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 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
782 Robebrt H. McDoTvell
R
-A :B C I D E I G I_

I \
*&X0AMARKAID

2~~~~GLH
tM~~~~~~BM Ak

'1V I I3NAA Abitso+/ IN3B

M4ARACNA

Ab-i-Istada(kE H 4
Aracho6ia .E-G, t
Ak-su
River.HO aRlatWar (city)

aAk Gandh_a

Bol~Dan 8Ghr(ityA...
Ps .............
...C
Camna.....
C7
7,8...Grsk(iy. ...
Areia.BC5 (city) ................. Dragina
F4 Gumal Rivr .......... ............ . F6-G B_6_ _
Charikar

(ct)D
Banjawaye Ghzi(ct)F

B1hr (ity . C Ghoban Rive . F2

Bks ie ...
2DolantPassE ... hr (city).C6........
.... . .......D
8ie
Carmhania.A7 Gi.....E7Frishk (city) ..................B

Cohariar (city).F4 I......

GhomandRiver. F6G

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Indo-Parthian Frontier 783

districtsof Rawal Pindi east of the Indus and Peshawaron the west
bank,which togethercomprisedGandhara,and the valleyof the Kabul
Riverbelow the KunarRiver.Adjoiningon the north lay the satrapy
of Nikanor, made up of the Kunar and Swat river valleys with an
extensioneastwardto an undefinedborderwith Gandhara;this unit
representsthe area personallytraversedand conqueredby Alexander
upon his entryinto India,and too little attentionhas been paid to its
wealth,high culture,and the strategicimportanceof this alternateroute
from KabulCity to the Indus.2
Within a veryshortperiodaftertheirestablishmentthe kingdomof
EasternPunjab(the kingdomof Poros) and Gandhara(the satrapyof
Philip) absorbedthe otherthreeunits.Though the latterretainedtheir
identitiesas importantnuclei throughoutthe succeedingperiods,East-
2 For this campaign of Alexander see Arrian, Anabasis, IV, 23-28. The route has
been describedby 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 satrapiessee E. R. Bevan, "Alexander the Great", CambridgeHistory 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.... AI, .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 ..... ..... Rawal Pindi (city).
FGs 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 ..................
Makra.BCiiUnai BCI I Pass..E
UniPs.............E
Margiana ........... ....... B3, 4
Mula River.Eg Wakhan.Hv
3
Multan (city) . ........... H8 H8
wa... kh .......... ..
Washver iv.Gi-F3
Murghab River .. D-B4 Yueh-chi territoryjust 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.
westernPunjab;Kingdom of Vonones Zarangiana ... ..... B7
and of Soter Megas. Zaranj (city) ... ..... A7

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
784 Robert H. McDowell

ern Punjaband Gandharastandout as paramount,and this relation-

ship can be tracedwith little interruptionfrom the Achemenidperiod
to the MiddleAges.
On the west betweenthe Hindu Kush and the Indian Ocean the
Greek and Roman sourcesrecognizethree units as borderingIndia:
the Paropamisadae, Arachosia,and Gedrosia.North of theseunits and
of the Hindu Kush lay Bactria,extendingeast only to the Kunduz
Rivervalley,which was considereda sourceof the Oxus; Sogdiana,ex-
tendingsouthto includeall of Badakshan;and, northeastof Sogdiana,
the countryof the highlandSakai,that is, Ferghana,the Pamirs,and
the watershedbetweenthe Indus and Tarim basins.3Insofaras they
can be checked,the earliersourcesagreewith Ptolemyin locatingthe
northwestern cornerof Indiaat the headof the Panjhirvalley,justsouth
of the headwatersof the easterntributaryof the Kunduz. This places
within India all of the Kunarbasinand the lower Kabulvalley,from
a pointbetweenKabuland Jelalabad.Straboand Pliny,however,locate
the Indianfrontierin the KabulvalleyratherbelowJelalabad.4 A great
deal of errorhas crept into our interpretationof the geographyand
historyof the Kabulvalleythrougha rathergeneralfailureto appreciate
the sense in which the Hellenisticwritersused the name Kophen.It
does not representthe lengthof the KabulRiverof our day but rather
the unitedstreamof the Kabuland the Kunarriversbelow Jelalabad.5
The districtof Kabul,the Kabulistanof the early Arab geographers,
from aboveJelalabadto the Ghorbandvalleywas attachedto, but not
an integralpart of, the Paropamisadae. In all periodsit appearsas a
passagewayratherthan as a centerof power.
Referencesto the Paropamisadae in our earlierWesternsourcesare
3Strabo,XV, 2, 9; Ptolemy,Geographia, VI, II-13, I8-2I, and mapsnos. 7, 9-10.
I have used the edition of Ptolemy preparedby 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'e(Paris, 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 "advancedtoward 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 instances in this same area of the application of a new name
to the union of two streams.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 T7heIndo-Parthian Frontier 785

vague, indicatinglittle more than that it included the head of the

Kabul valley,but they do not permitan assumptionthat it extended
east of the valleyto includepartsof Kafiristan.Ptolemyincludesin it
the easternlimits of the satrapyof Turiaspes,that is, the Ghorband,
Panjhir,and Kabul City districts.-Westward it includedBamianand
the HeratRivervalleydown to aboutmidwaybetweenDaolatyarand
Obeh,whereit borderedon Arei. Becauseof the paucityof reference
in the Hellenisticliterature,present-dayhistorianshave failed to see
in it a politicalcenterof greatsignificance.Bamian,however,is recog-
nized as one of the great Buddhistcentersof the MiddleEast.As late
as the nineteenthcenturywhat has been describedas the best and the
most generallyused route from the Oxus to Kabul passed through
Bamianand thenceeitherby the easy ShibarPass into the Ghorband
valley or south into the upperHelmand River valley and so, by the
Unai Pass, to Kabul. The early Arab geographersdescribedanother
routefrom the Oxus throughBamianto Ghazni and thencesouth to
the greatport of Tiz in Makran,or Gedrosia.It appears,indeed,that
the only route known to the ArabsbetweenHerat and Kabul passed
throughBamian.Otherroutes,practicablefor bothcommerceand war,
connectedBamianthroughthe Herat and Farahrivervalleyswith the
Ghur countryand Seistan.It was this strategicpositionthat led the
Arabs to call Bamian "the trade port of Khorasanand the treasure
house of Sind [the India of the Arabs]."
BamianCitywas variouslydescribedas half the size of andas largeas
Balkhitself,and the kingdomincludedmanylargecitiesscatteredover
centralAfghanistanfrom the Kabul valley to the bordersof Herat.
Besidesits commercialimportanceand the fertilityof its valleys,it was
said to possessimportantgold and silvermines.The culturalaffiliations
of Bamianwith India were remarkedin the Middle Ages, and this
traditionhas persistedinto moderntimes.The militaryimportanceof
the Bamian route is attestedby its repeateduse during the Afghan
civil wars,by the passageof Nadir Shah with an army that included
artillery,and by the recordedconquestsof Bamianby the Khwarzim
shahs and the Mongols.For our presentpurposesthe value of these
Arab recordslies in the evidencethat the kingdomof Bamianof the
early Middle Ages correspondedclosely with the limits of the Paro-
pamisadaedescribedby Ptolemy,and at timesit extendedto the eastern
limitsof the satrapyof 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

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
786 Robert H. McDowell

The Arachosiaof Ptolemycomprisedthe upperandmiddleHelmand

River valley, the districtsaroundGhazni and Lake Ab-i-Istada,and
probablyincluded the passesof the Gumal and Tochi rivers to the
Indus plain. The boundaryon this easternside cannot be accurately
traced,but it appearsto have extendedto the plain.The borderon the
south,that is, with Gedrosia,ran only a little to the southof the lake,
which is called by Ptolemy"the Lake of Arachosia".The Kandahar
district,whichis so commonlyidentifiedwith Arachosiaby present-day
writers,is includedby Ptolemywithin the bordersof Gedrosia.Strabo,
Pliny, Arrian, and Isidor of Charaxconfirmin a general way this
concentrationof Arachosia toward Ghazni rather than toward
Kandahar.
Furthersupportis offeredby the sourcesof the earlyIslamicperiod.
The Kandahardistrict,calledby the ArabsRukhkhaj,with its capital,
Banjaway,formedpart of what they called Sijistan.This unit repre-
sentedan expansionof northernGedrosia,the Sakastanof Isidor,for
Zarangianaand Drangianawere included.AboveSijistanlay the Arab
Zabulistan,which comprisedthe highlandcountryof the middle and
upperHelmandvalley,the upperreachesof the Kandaharrivers,and
the districtof Ghazni,with whichthe nameZabulistanwas mostclosely
connected.North of Zabulistanon the frontiersof Bamian lay the
Arab Kabulistan.8
It is clearthat the Arachosiaof our Greekand Romansourcesand
the Zabulistanof the early Arabs representessentiallythe same area
7 For Arachosia see Ptolemy, VI, 20. Strabo (XI, 8, 9) and Pliny (VI, 2I, 6-8), in
a series of measureddistancesbetween Alexandriaof Areia (Herat) and India, ignore the
existence of any center near Kandaharand pass from Prophthasiaof 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"lies north of the lake; the rest of Arachosia,with
Ghazni as the center, lay outside the 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 extending north of Kandahar.
8 Le Strange, pp. 334, 344-49; cf. Holdich, pp. 136, 474, 5I2. Kandahar is 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 strategistsof
the nineteenth century.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Indo-ParthianFrontier 787
andthe samecenterof powerwithinthe area.Bothgroupsof sources
areveryvaguewith respectto the easternborderof the area,but the
Arabsclearlygraspedthe significance of the GumalandTochipasses
to the Indus,which served both Ghazni andthelakecountry.Ghazni
wascalled"theportof India",andfromit the greatSultanMahmud
raidedIndiaand destroyed the Arabpowerin Multan.The strategic
positionof Ghazniin relationto boththeOxusandtheIndussuggests
thatthe Indiancountrysouthof Peshawarand southeastto Multan,
extremesouthwestern Punjab,wascloselyrelatedto Arachosia proper
and,givena leaderin Ghazni,becamedependent uponit.
The easternfrontiersof Gedrosia,the remainingpoliticalunit
bordering Indiaon the west,musthaveincludedthe presentdistricts
of Kandahar, Quetta,Kalat,andLasbela.As in the caseof Arachosia,
Ptolemyshowsthe easternboundary runningcloseto the Indusplain.
The character andimportance of Gedrosia havebeenbadlymisjudged
throughcasualinterpretation of the accountsportraying the sufferings
of the Macedonian armyin thisregion.Arrian'saccountis explicitin
thestatements thatit wasthecoastwhichwasdesertandthatAlexander
deliberatelychosethemoredifficultroutein orderto maintaincontact
with the fleet.9The earlyArabsourcespresenta moredetailedand
balanced picture,andthisreceives corroboration fromaccounts bymore
recenttravelers.TheMakranof theArabsextendednorthfromthesea
onlyto Turan,whichcorresponds to theKalatdistrict;on theeast,like
the earlierGedrosia,it closelyapproached the Indusmouthand ex-
tendedon thewestto theborders of Carmania or Kerman.It possessed
manyfertilevalleysin an advancedstageof cultivationand many
wealthycitiesnearthe coastand in the interior.Commerce was the
principal sourceof wealth:by seato thegreatportof Tiz, thenceover-
landto India;by caravanfromSyriaandBagdad;and,as hasalready
beennoted,by caravanfromKhorasanand the Oxusvalleyby wav
of Ghazni.Tiz replacedHormuzin the tenthcenturyas the portof
Sijistan.Thispictureof Makran,or southernGedrosia, in the Middle
Agesis supported by numerous andextensiveancientsiteswhichhave
beenreported of thepresentday.On thebasisof evidence
by travelers
as opposedto surmisetherouteto andfromIndiaby wayof southern
Gedrosiamustbe recognizedas one of the most significantof the
9 Anab., VI, 23-24. Note that Alexander was so impressed with the possibilities of
the country of the Oreitai, in a general sense the Lasbela district, that he inaugurated a
foundation there which he expected would become a large city (ibid., VI, 21.5; Quintus
Curtius, IX, io).

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
788 Robert H. McDowell

ancient Middle East, equalled only, if at all, by that through the

Kabul valley.'0
Though it will neverbe possibleto localizeaccuratelyby meansof
their coinages all of the political nuclei establishedin India and
Afghanistanby the Greek and Saka chiefs who followed Alexander
the Great, the numerouscoins which have surviveddo provideim-
portantdata for the recognitionof units the approximatefrontiersof
which have been establishedby meansof other evidence."1It is gen-
erally agreedthat no coins of the Yavanaor Bactriandynastieswere
struckin the Oxusand Jaxartesvalleysafterthe reignof Heliocles,that
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 CambridgeHistory 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.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Indo-Parthian Frontier 789

The Yavanaprincipalities of the Indusbasintook shapefrom about

155 B.C. to some time priorto the middle of the first centuryB.C., and
undernew dynastiestheypersistedat leastto the middleof the succeed-
ing century.The outlinewhich followsis basedlargelyon the veryable
and generallysuccessfulreconstruction of the numismaticevidenceby
ProfessorRapson.The princesof the House of Euthydemushad their
centerin the easternPunjab,wherethey representeda continuationof
the earlierkingdomof Poros. In periodsof expansionthey dominated
also the lower Indus valleyand the seacoast,thoughfor the most part
these areasdo not appearto have been effectivelyheld by the Yavana
kingdoms,and to the norththeyexpandedinto Kashmirand the upper
Indus valley; at shorterintervalstheir rule extendedwestwardto in-
clude much of the territorynormallyheld by the rival House of
Eucratides.
The greatestcenterof the House of Eucratideswas undoubtedly
Gandhara,and their kingdom is generallyequated with the com-
bined satrapiesof Philip and Nikanor.To this I would add, for much
of this period,the satrapyof the Paropamisadae and would distinguish
more specificallythan does Rapsona dependentunit in southwestern
Punjabwhich had formedpartof the satrapyof Philip.12After Gand-
harathe most importantpoliticalunit held by the Houseof Eucratides
was Kapica,which, as the kingdom of Hermaeus,survivedafter the
valleyof the Indushad passedinto the handsof a new dynasty.Rapson
equatesthis name with the upperKabulvalleyand Kafiristan,but the
evidencedoes not supportthis. Kapicacertainlyincludedpartsof the
Kabul valley and Kafiristan,but the study of its characteristiccoin
typesin relationto the areasin which these types are known to have
circulatedrequiresthat the centerof this unit be.locatedwithin the
areaembracedby the KunarandSwatvalleys,thatis, withinthe satrapy
of Nikanor.The coins of Hermaeusare found in large numbersnot
only in the Kabul valley but to the east in the Indus valley and the
Punjab,wherethis princemust long have disputedthe rise of the new
dynasty.The late Chinesereferencesto Kapica,cited by Rapson,refer
not to the upperKabulvalleybut to the Swat valley,whichwas a great
Buddhist center and lay near the well-known southernroad from
China to India.'3
12 Rapson, "The Successorsof 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 attributedto 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

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
790 Robert H. McDowell

Anotherimportantnucleusof the House of Eucratideshas hitherto

beenknownonly by the monogramwhichdistinguishedits mint,kappa
with rho."4A considerable bodyof datais availablefor the identification
of this mint areaand pointsvery definitelyto the territorywhich had
its center in the Bamian valley, the earlier Paropamisadaeand the
kingdomof Bamianof the MiddleAges. The mint was employedby
at least fifteen Yavanaprincesandchada longer life than any of the
other Greek mints of the East, from the reign of EuthydemusI to
just prior to the accessionof Hermaeus,the last of the Yavanalines.
In it was struckmoreof the silverof EuthydemusI than in any other
one mint,and it sharedin the issueof his bronze.Sincethe greaterpart
of the known coinsof this reign have been found northof the Hindu
Kush, this mint must have been adjacentto the Oxus valley. An
analysisof the coins of DemetriusI points to the same conclusion.
Of thosecoinsof Euthydemuswhich havebeen recoveredsouthof the
Hindu Kush, by far the greaterpart come from the upper Kabul
valley; the mint, therefore,must have been adjacentto this area.On
the Qtherhand,the greaternumberof the princeswho madeuse of this
mint ruledonly southof the Hindu Kush; it follows of coursethat it
cannothave been locatedin Bactria.These conditionscan be satisfied
only by an assignmentof the mint to eitherBamianor the headof the
Kabul valley, but the latter must be ruled out because-of other con-
siderations.
In his studyof the YavanacoinagesWhiteheadhas noted a group
of five mint markswhich he was unableto placein the Indus valley,
Punjab,or Kapica,and which appearedto have been particularlyas-
sociatedwith the region of the Kabul valley.The mint distinguished
by kappa-rho is one of thesefive, but the evidencesuggeststhat it was
less directlyconnectedwith the Kabulvalleyitself than were the other
four. The English numismatistdiscussesin detail ninety-sevensilver
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 corroborativeevidence.
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 necessarilyrepresentnames of cities. All of the
great Parthian mints of Iran from about 70 B.c. are so distinguished, and the Parthian
practiceappearsto have been borrowed directly from the Bactrian.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 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-rhoor kappaalone. 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 important Yavana nucleus in the Paropamisadae
throws new light on the historyof Greek domination of 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 possessedof 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 perspectivewhich we know was appropriatefor 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 supportedby the extremely varied
characterof 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 combined with the kappa, but I have observed it repeated!s,and it has been
recordedby Alexander von PetroNvicz (Arsaciden-Tvtiinzen [Vienna, 1904], p. 42, no. 23).

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
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 approachesbecause
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
Parthian Invaders", Cam. Hist. India, I, 563-7I. Cf. Whitehead, p. 338, and Gardner,
p. xl. The coins of Maues have been found chiefly in northwesternPunjab. 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.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Indo-Parthian Frontier 793

Azes II, are not known for the Ghaznicountryor for the Kabulvalley
above Jelalabad.There does occur in the valley, and apparentlyonly
there,a seriesof issuesbelongingto a Vononesand an associatedgroup
of Sakarulers.The style and typesof thesecoins are so closelyrelated
to thoseof the Sakaiin Gandharaand the Punjabthat the two groups
of princesmust be classedtogether,and it is generallyacceptedthat
Azes II representsa fusion of both elements.'8Rapsonstatesthat the
family of Vonones ruled over "Drangiana[Seistan] and Arachosia
[Kandahar]".In this he disregardscompletelythe essentialfactorof
find spots and baseshimself on the characteristic types found on the
coins of Vonones,which, he says,were "presumably" struckin some
districtof Arachosia.But these same types were employedby Azes,
Azilises, or Hermaeus,who by no stretchof the imaginationcan be
thought to have ruled Seistan,Kandahar,or even Ghazni. The as-
sumptionof Rapsonis reasonablethat the characterof the legend on
this classof coins, with its referenceto joint rulers,points to two dif-
ferent areascontrolledby one paramountchief. As one area I would
suggest the Kabul valley, where the coins occur, with Arachosiaas
we have defined it, excluding the Kandahardistrict.As the second
area,joinedto the firstby the Gumal and Tochi passes,southwestern
Punjab,southof the Peshawardistrict,presentsitselfas a logicalchoice.
Identifiedwith this area, the types of Vonones and his associates
fulfill all of the requirementsof their occurrencein other reigns.
Beforethe fusionof the twvogroupsunderAzes II, the princesof Kabul
andArachosiaappearat timesto haveextendedtheirruleoverPeshawar
and partsof Gandhara.It is not necessaryto assume,as do Rapson
and Thomas, that Vonones occupiednot only the Kabul valley but
brought to an end the rule of Hermaeusin what had been left of
Kapica. During this period Azilises continued to rule in parts of
Gandharaand the Punjab,and the ChinesesourcessuggestthatKapica,
in partat least,becameunitedto Gandhara.The dategiven by Rapson
for Vonones is approximatelycorrect,though it will be suggested
below that he had establishedhimself in the Kabul valley prior to
36 B.C. For our presentpurposesthe particularsignificanceof the rise
of Vononeslies in the evidenceit affordsof the developmentof a new
nucleus and, for the first time since the reign of Eucratides,of 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.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
794 Robert H. AMIcDowell

extensionof the Indian frontierto include Arachosia,the region of

Ghazni and of Lake Ab-i-Istada.
The successorof Azes II in Gandharaand the Punjabwas Gondo-
pharnes,and his reignin Gandharabeganin A.D. i9.19 These admitted
facts,however,determineneitherthe originalnucleusof his powernor
the dateat whichhe establishedhimselfoutsideGandhara.The bulk of
the extantcoinsof Gondopharnes havebeenfoundin the Kabulvalley,
and a considerablequantityin the Punjab.Relativelyfew have been
reportedfrom Kandaharand Seistan.He countermarked coins of his
contemporaryArtabanusII of Parthiaand of the earlierOrodes II.
On his earlycoins he copiedone of the typesof this sameArsacidand
borrowed the title A#itokratorfrom the still earlier Sinatrucesof
Parthia.Withoutcitingfinds of his coinsRapsonassumesthat Gondo-
pharnesreignedin "Arachosia" becauseof a supposedrelationshipwith
Vonones;that is, he assumesfor Gondopharnesthe argumentswhich
he appliedto the typesof Vonones.
Though I find no evidenceof a relationshipbetweenGondopharnes
and Vonones,I would acceptthe assumptionof Rapsonas appliedto
Arachosiaas here defined.There can be no doubt that Gondopharnes
interferedin Parthianaffairsand territory,but the evidence of the
coins points only to this and not to prolonged rule over districts which
had hithertobeenParthian.I wouldsuggest,rather,thatGondopharnes
rose to power in a region of Arachosia,above Lake Ab-i-Istada,that
had once been Parthianbut was so no longer.There he imitatedcoins
of formerreigns.From an earlypoint in his reign he must have ruled
also in the Kabul valley,and to that area I would assignat least one,
perhapsboth, classesof his coins with the Nike reverse.Thus far his
coinage remainsentirelydistinctfrom that of his Saka predecessors.
The greaternumberof his known types,however,closelyfollow those
of Azes and Azilises, and they must be assignedto the succeeding
period of his rule in Gandharaand the Punjab. The date for his
accessionig basedon an inscriptionmadein Gandharaand is expressed
in termsof an Indianera; it can be takento indicateonly the acknowl-
edgmentof his successionto the throneof this ancientcenter.The date
19 Rapson, Cam. Hist. India, I, 576-78. For the find spots of the coins of Gondo-
pharnessee 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 disregard of the essential
unity of the numismatic evidence makes unacceptablehis argument for the location of
the kingdom of Gondopharnes as well as that of the Chinese unit known as Ke-pin.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Indo-Parthian Frontier 795

A.D. I9 is importantas fixing the definiteunion of the Punjab,Gand-

hara,Kapica,the Kabulvalley,and Arachosia.
In this connectionwe must considerthe coinageof the "nameless
king" of this period, who called himself on his issues simply Soter
Megas.20The great majorityof his coins representa completebreak
with the types and style which had characterizedthe coinagesof the
Mauesand Vononesgroup as well as with the laterissuesof Gondo-
pharnes.On all of the latter a horsemanis shown on the obverse,
whereasSoterMegas,like the Arsacids,displayedthe royalportraiton
the obverse.The reverseof his coins invariablybearsthe figure of a
horseman,but it is done in a style closelysimilarto that on contem-
poraryand later Parthiancoins. The coins of Soter Megas occur ill
great numbersin the Kabul valley and are noted by Gardnerfor no
otherarea.For the periodsucceedingGondopharnes, however,the issues
of the Kushanadynastyoccurin that valleyin even greaterabundance.
This fact togetherwith the wide diversityof style separatingthe coin-
ages of the Kushanasand SoterMegasrequiresthe assignmentof the
latterto the periodimmediatelyprecedingGondopharnes, andit follows
that he must have been the successorof Vononesin the Kabul valley
and, presumably,in Arachosia.
SoterMegas,I suggest,was the firstof the so-calledPahlavarulers.
From some nucleusin Arachosianearthe Parthianborderhe rose and
destroyedthe power of Vonones. While Soter Megas controlledthe
Kabul valley and Arachosia,and perhapsits extensionthrough the
Gumal Pass to the Indus, Azes II continuedto rule in Gandhara,a
partof the Punjab,and probablyin the Swat valleyof Kapica.I would
suggest,further,that Gondopharnesinheritedthe kingdom of Soter
Megas and continuedto rule his territoryfor some years before he
invadedand conqueredGandhara.The rise of SoterMegasrepresents
a reactionagainstthe earlierrise of Vononesand his Saka associates,
but the two mustbe consideredas the foundersof a kingdomwhichfor
perhapsfifty yearsmaintaineditself betweenIndia and Parthia.
The united kingdom of Gondopharnes,which centeredin Gand-
hara,was brokenup by the rise of the Kushanadynasty.In Pacores
and Orthagneswe have two Pahlavaprinceswho maintainedthem-
selvesfor someyearsthereafterin Arachosiaand southwestern Punjab.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 definitely earlier and are completely foreign to those of KadphisesI
and his successors.
21 Rapson, Cam. Hist. India, 1, 58, 580. Rapson has made
Orthagneqa predecessor

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
796 Rober-t H. McDowell

The types of the formerassociatehim in particularwith the Indian

side of the Gumal Pass, whereas the latter can have ruled only in
Arachosia,but the coins of both occurin Kandaharand Seistan.This
advanceis to be connectedwith the civil wars in Parthiaduring the
reign of VolagasesI.
There are known coins of PhraatesIV of Parthiawhich have been
countermarked by an unnamedSakaruler;thesecoins appearto have
been struck in the Parthianmint of southernGedrosia.Sanabares,
anotherSaka or Pahlavaprince,imitatedcoins of VolagasesI which
must be attributedto this samemint. On the basisof theseassociations
bothof theseprincesmustbe assignedto the deltacountryof the Indus
valley, immediatelyadjoiningGedrosia,where, as we learn from the
Periplus,during this very period"Parthian"lords ruled in a state of
constantcivil war.22
This outline of the political units which borderedthe eastern
frontiersof Parthiaduring the periodsof Greekand Saka rule in the
Middle East can be filled in and renderedmore completeby evidence
from contemporaryChinese annals. We are here concernedchiefly
with data to be found in the Ch'ien-han-sut,though recourseis had to
the earlierShi-kiand the laterHou-han-su.The picturetherepresented
applies to the first centuryB.C. and to that part of the next century
which precededthe riseof the Kushanadynasty.23For this periodand
the areaembracingnorthwesternIndia and the Afghan countrynorth
of Gondopharneson the basis of an issue wvhich,on 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 necessitatedby the fact that all of the coins of Orthagnesimitate
the portrait of Volagases I of Parthia, who came to the throne in A.D. 5I. I refer in
particularto 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 successorin Parthia may have been MithradatesIV. See also Le Pe'riplede la
n2er trythre6e,edited by H. Frisk (G6teborg, I927), no. 38.
23 For the most part I shall cite the now standard translation and 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 vorchristlichenZeit. I have
made use, also, of 0. Franke, Geschichte des chinesische Reiches, Volume I (Berlin,
1930), and Sten Konow, "Notes on Indo-ScythianChronology",Journalof Indian History,
XII (Apr., 1933), 1-46.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Indo-Parthian Frontier 797

to the Oxus River,the Chineserecognizedto the east of Parthiatwo

so-calledgreat kingdoms, Ke-pin and 0-ik-san-li, together with a
numberof smallerkingdomsor dependentdistricts.Among the latter
we are particularlyconcernedwith Ko-hu, P'ak-tat,and the country
occupiedby the five clansof the Yueh-chi.
In this particularperiod the Yueh-chioccupiedthe upper Oxus
valley from the Pamirswest to include Badakshanand the Kunduz
River valley, as well as upper Chitral.24South and southeastof the
Yueh-chiwas said to lie Ke-pin.Mostscholars,influencedby similarity
of sound,identify Ke-pin with Kapica,though the Peshawardistrict
is generallyincluded.25The philologicalrelationshipin this instanceis
probablebut establishesno boundaries.Kapicawas better known to
the Chinese,sinceit lay nearertheirborders,than Gandhara.For that
reasonthey used that name,but the territorythey referredto included
Gandhara.A partwas used to denotethe whole,just as the Greekshad
used the word Parthiato denotea largerempire. Lan-to,a dependent
districtof Ke-pin,lay to the northeast,and De Groot has been able
to identifyit with the Hunza country,far beyondKapica.
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 regarded as 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 disregardedthe 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 Gandharakingdom.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
798 Robert H. McDowell

In itself conclusiveis the descriptionof Ke-pin.Along with Parthia

and 0-ik-san-liit was distinguishedas a greatkingdompossessedof its
own coinage.The land was said to be flat and the climatemild, so the
characteristic partof the countrymust have embracedthe Indusplain
of Gandhara. It producedsandalwoodand bamboo,and its fauna
includedthe elephantand the buffalo.Its inhabitantswere adept in
the constructionof great buildings and in carving,engraving,and
inlay work.Furtherproofof the identityof Ke-pinrestson interesting
numismaticnotes in the Chinesetext. For this particularperiod the
Parthiancoinage was said to bear on the reversethe portraitof a
woman. This can referonly to Musa,wife and motherof Phraataces
(2 B.C.-A.D. 5); their coinageis especiallycharacteristic
of southeastern
Iran. The contemporarycoinages of Ke-pin and 0-ik-san-li are
comparedin the furtherstatementthat the obverseof the formerbore
the figureof a horseman,while in the case of the latterthe horseman
appearedon the reverse.As we have alreadyseen, the coinage thus
attributedto Ke-pinis characteristicof the kingdomof Gandharaunder
the Saka dynasty,and that to 0-ik-san-li,of the kingdom of Soter
Megas.It is clear,therefore,that the Ke-pinof the Chinesesourcesis
the kingdomof Gandhara,which in successionhad been the kingdom
of the House of Eucratides,the kingdom of the Saka dynasty of
Maues,and, later, the kingdom of Gondopharnes.The Chineseevi-
dence demonstrates,as the types of Maues had suggested,that this
great political unit extended far to the north in the upper Indus basin,
where it must have touched the countryof the Sakai delimitedby
Ptolemy.
0-ik-san-li,besidesbeing identifiedas the kingdomof SoterMegas,
was said to lie both west and southwestof Ke-pin as well as to the
east of Parthia.It was describedas flat,very fertile,but very hot. As
west of Ke-pin it clearlyembracedArachosia,as we have definedit,
and the districtof Kabul.As southwestof Ke-pin,and characterized by
extremeheat,we must concludenot only that it extendedeast through
the Gumaland Tochi passesbut that it includedan importantareain
southwesternPunjab,for to the Chinese this was the characteristic
part of the country.26
Further evidence is affordedby the descriptionof the principal
branchof the greatsouthernroadfrom Chinato the far west. It passed
throughKhotan,and considerabledetail is given of its coursethence
southwestthroughKe-pinand its terminusin O-ik-san-li.27 Although
26De Groot, II, 86, 27 Ibid., pp. 47-48, 69-70,
9I, 93. 92.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Indo-Parthian Frontier 799

fourprincipalroutesaredescribed,only in the one instan'ceis this detail

afforded;and it is to be taken as evidenceof the importanceof both
route and terminus.The Chinese apparentlyknew nothing of the
greatdesertof the Sind, and they fail to mentionthe sea in connection
with the terminus..One may presume,therefore,that their road came
to an end northof the Sind, and theremay be real significancein the
fact that the road from Bagdadto India describedby the early Arab
geographersextendedto Multanin southwesternPunjab,adjacentto
the very areawe are discussing.The descriptionof the sea routefrom
Egyptand the PersianGulf to the Indus mouth given in the Periplus
belongsto the same centuryas does the Chineseaccount.
Even more closelycontemporary is the accountgiven by Isidorof
Charaxof the route from SyriathroughSeleucia,which he brings to
an end on the Parthianborderat what he calls the metropolisof
Arachosia.Now the Chinesetext statesthat in orderto reachParthia
from the terminusone proceedednorthand a little to the east (appar-
entlyan errorfor "west"),and if from Multan,or from the districtnear
it on the west bank of the Indus,one proceedsnorth and a short dis-
tance west throughthe Gumal Pass one reachesthe very point where
our westernsourcesall placethe capitalof Arachosia,and whereIsidor
places the contemporaryParthian border.28The Arab name for
Ghazni,"theport of India",links it with southwesternPunjabin the
trade from the Oxus valley.This remarkableseriesof Chinesedocu-
ments of the first centurydemonstratesthe existenceof an important
politicalunit stretchingacrossArachosiato the middle Indus valley,
whichservedto link the commerceof the upperIndusvalleyand China
and thatof Parthiaand the Indusdelta.
0-ik-san-liwas in existenceas a kingdom independentof Ke-pin
as early as 36 B.C, when it was includedin a reportto the Chinese
courtas one of the nationsthreatenedby the rise to powerof Tche-tche
and the K'ang-kiof Sogdiana.9 This referencecan applyonly to the
reign of Vonones, while he and his associateswere ruling Arachosia
and the Kabulvalley,and it confirmsthe suggestionalreadymade that
SoterMegasmust be recognizedas the successorof Vononesin Ara-
chosia.The referenceis importantnot only as establishingthe 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.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
800 Robert H. McDowell

chronologyfor the Yavanaand Saka kings, which has been worked

out by Rapson.
We have seen that the Yueh-chiwere locatedduring the first cen-
tury B.C. in the Oxus valley from the Pamirs to, and including,
Badakshan.The districtsoccupiedby four of the five clans are de-
scribedas extendingin a row from east to west, and the fifth clan is
said to be locatedsouthof the fourth.In the Ch'ien-han-suthe territory
of this fifth clan is called by the name Ko-hu, but the Hot-han-su,
which takes up the narrativefrom the rise of the Kushanadynasty,
statesthat in this the earlierannalswere in error,that the countryof
the fifth clan bore the name To-bit,and that Ko-hu lay southwestof
the Yueh-chidistrictsand was a large wealthy countrywith a dis-
tinctiveculturerelatedto that of India.It had neverbeen independent
but had successivelybeen underthe rule of T'ien-tok(EasternPunjab
and in part Kashmir),Ke-pin,and Parthia;the Yueh-chitook it only
when KadphisesI first expandedhis districtto establishthe Kushana
empire.Not only is Parthianamed as the last to hold Ko-hu priorto
this, but in a later passagewe find again the statement:"He [Kad-
phises I] attackedParthia,took possessionof Ko-hu, and destroyed
P'ak-tatand Ke-pin."'
Some scholarshave identifiedKo-huas the upperKabulvalley,but
the evidencestronglysupportsits equationwith the districtof Bamian.
Here lay the centerfor an importantarea; it possessedgreat wealth;
as a great Buddhistcenterits culturalrelationswith India must have
been close;and it lay southwestof Badakshan,which was the heartof
the Yueh-chicountry.I suggest that the fifth clan had occupiedthe
upper Kunduz valley, correspondingto To-bit; that about 25 B.C. it
took possessionof Bamian, adjacentto this valley, and forced the
closing of the Parthianmint of Bamian;that the Parthianslater re-
gained political control of Bamian with its new element, probably
during the reign of ArtabanusII, who is known to have waged suc-
cessful wars in the East; and that during the civil wars between
Vardanesand Gotarzes,KadphisesI conqueredBamianas described
in the Hou-han-su.Under this interpretation,which appearsto meet
all of the requirements,both of the Chineserecordscan be accepted
withoutcontradiction;the laterof the two naturallyreflectsthe 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.

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Indo-Parthian Frontier 8oi

most favorableto the prestigeof the Kushana dynasty.Ko-hu thus

appearsas the equivalentof the great kingdom of Bamian of the
Middle Ages, of the great borderlinemint area of the Parthianand
Yavanakingdoms,andof the Paropamisadae of the Hellenisticsources.
Overa periodof severalyearsaroundthe middleof the firstcentury
A.D. KadphisesI conqueredand united Bactriaproper,Bamian,and
the kingdomof Gandharawith its extensionsinto the Kunar,Swat,and
upperIndusvalleys.31The Kabulvalleymust have been included,but
the situationin Arachosiais not clear.As we have seen,it had formed
part of the united kingdom of Gondopharnes,but after his defeat
Pacoresand Orthagnescontinuedto rule there and in southwestern
Punjabfor an indefiniteperiod.Unlike Ke-pinand Ko-hu,0-ik-san-li
does not appearto have been mentionedby later Chinesesourcesas a
dependencyof the Yueh-chi,and it is not clearwhetherArachosiawas
then countedas an integralpart of Ke-pin or whetherit lay outside
the Kushanafrontiers.The lattersuppositionis supportedby the evi-
dence alreadynoted for the locationof Zabulistanduring the early
Islamic period, with its center around Ghazni, and the close corre-
spondenceof its borderswith thosegiven for Arachosiaby Ptolemyin
the secondcenturyA.D. In the deltaof the lower Industhe overlordship
of the Kushanascameto be recognized,but it does not appearto have
been effectivelyexercised.
On the basisof the availableevidencethe frontiersof the Kushana
Empire toward Iran, at least until the close of the Parthianperiod,
cannot be extended to include more than Bactriaproper,the Paro-
pamisadaeof Bamian,and, possibly,the Arachosiaof Ghazni with its
extensioneast into the Indus valley.To a remarkablyclose degreethis
westernboundaryapproximatesthat of the Yavanakingdomsof the
East at the death of Eucratidesabout I55 B.C.The changes in this
frontier during the interveningperiod were limited largely to the
successiveloss and reconquestof these same three areas of central
Afghanistan32
ROBERTH. MCDOWELL.
Universityof Michigan.
31 As Konow states (p. 3I), as against Rapson (Cam. Hist. India, I, 584), it was
Kadphises I rather than KadphisesII 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 Greeks in Bactria & India (New York, 1938), and
W. M. McGovern,The Early Empires of Central Asia (Chapel Hill, 1939).

AM. HIST. REV., VOL. XLIV.-55

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:22:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions