Early Arsakid Stemma.

_______________________________________
| |
ARSAKES I Tiridates
(c.280-218) S1-4 b.c.270s
I c.237-218 |
| |
| |
ARSAKES II S5-7 ignotus
(c.240s-200) b.c.250
II c.218-200 |
| |
| FRIYAPATAK (no coinage;
ARTABAN I S8,9,10.15 (c.220s-190) Seleukid vassal)
(c.210-175) III c.200-190
IV c.190-175 |
first Basileus |
| |
_______________________________|________________ |
| | | |
S10 FRAHATES I ignota = MITHRADATES I = Rinnu VAGASES S18 Artaxerxes
(c.195-170) | (c.192-132) | b.c.170 (c.190-126) b.c.190s
V c.175-170 | VI c.170-132 | VIII 127-6 |
| | S10-13 | | |
sons | | | |
b.by 170 ARTABAN II S19-22 | Artaban |
/(c.170-122) | Comm.Babylonia |
__/ IX 126-122 | (c.160s-post120) |
Persian / | | | |
(Frataraka) adopted | | ? SANATRUK (1) = ignota
| / | | S14-17 (c.155-69) | Parthica
| / | FRAHATES II [--]ishtar = (2) XII 91-69 |
MITHRADATES II |S23.1-2 (c.146-127) (Suren?) | S33 |
(c.152-91) ARTABAN III VII 132-127 | |
XI 122-91 (c.138-121) | | |
|S22.3 X 122-121 x | |
|S23.3-9 | | |
|S24-28 x | |
|_____________________________________________________ | |
| | | | | | |
Ashiabatar = GOTARZES I MITHRADATES III ORODES I = Izpubarza | Arsakes Theos
(Grk.Siake)| (c.132-87) (c.130-78) (120s-75) | | (Indicus)
| XIII 91-87 XIV 87-78 XV 81-75 ? | (c.110s-58)
? S29 | S31 S32,34 | |
some S28 Susa AE | |S35-39,30prov |
| FRAHATES III |
Pir(w)uztana = ARSAKES XVI (Frahates?) (c.95-57)\ |
| (c.91-63) XVI 77-63 XVII 69-57 \ |
? S30(except provincial) | adopted |
| / _____|__________
| \ | |
| MITHRADATES IV Arsakes
| (c.85-54) “Theopator”
S42-48 ORODES II XVIII 57-54 (c.80-50s)
Suren prince (c.80-37) | S40-41 |
of Carrhae XIX 56-37 ? ?
(83-52) |
| __?_______________________|__
| | | |
Tanlismardates = Rangodeme FRAHATES IV PAKUR I S49
(c.66-20s) | b.c.64 (c.63-2 BC) (c.65-38)
| XXI 37-2 XX 39-38
| S50-54
Tanlis Mos(chos)
(b.c.40s)– last Suren lord of Sakastan (replaced by Gondofareans 20s BC)
 2

Evidence and comments.

The principal sources for the early Arsakid stemma are three royal genealogies preserved on three
contemporary ostraka found at Old Nisa in Parthia Nisaia province, and the statements in Justinus’
continuous but summarizing and interrupted account of the early Arsakids (books 41-42).
Although Justinus’ record is frequently flawed that is mainly the result of his quirky and
frequently careless summarising methods, and it remains valuable because it derives (via
Pompeius Trogus) from variously good to excellent eastern sources which knew the personal
names of the Arsakid rulers (probably mainly the histories of the Armenian King Artavasdes and
of Apollodoros of Artemita and his “school” of specialist Parthian historians).

Genealogical evidence from Justinus;

a) Arsakes II son of Arsakes I (xli.5.7)

b) paternity of Friyapatak (“Priapatius”) is omitted.

c) Friyapatak left two sons, Mithradates and Frahates, the latter the elder and successor (xli.5.9)

d) Frahates I left several sons (unnamed) but nominated his brother Mithradates his successor over
their heads (xli.5.9-10).

e) Mithradates I died in a senectute no less gloriosa than his proavus Arsakes I (xli.6.9)
(Roman senectas began from the age of 55; however Justinus xlii.4.14-15 twice calls Orodes II a senex
when he was only in his forties, and probably early forties)

f) Frahates II was son and successor of Mithradates I (xlii.1.1).

g) Frahates II was succeeded by his paternal uncle Artaban (xlii.2.1); thus indicating a third brother of
Frahates I and Mithradates I.

h) Artaban II was succeeded by his son Mithradates II (xlii.2.3)

i) Mithradates II's Tocharian victories avenged more than one father (parentes twice, at xlii.2.3 and
2.5) therefore one natural and one adoptive.
 3
Some other genealogic evidence.

Artaban son of Vagases

commander over the four generals, Babylonia, 120s BC.
The Sachs/Hunger Ast.Diary No.-119A(2)+B(1) appears to record his dismissal as commander
“above the four commanders” in Babylonia in 120 BC, together with another general named
Urrhashu.
What is not in doubt is his rank at that date and the filiation “son of Bagayasha”. Filiation in such
documents is rare and in this case has presumably been added to distinguish him from the young
king Artaban III (son of Artaban II, brother of Mithradates II) who the previous year was slain in
battle by the nomads settled in Baktria and Areia, and whose fate was still being referred to in
official dispatches sent to Babylon (and recorded there by the Akkadian scribes) as late as autumn
119 BC.

Gotarzes I son of Mithradates II

Gotarzes' paternity, as eldest surviving son and heir of Mithradates II, is implied by his position,
as satrap of satraps, on the rock-carving with inscriptions at Behistun, and confirmed by a
cuneiform Astronomical Dairy from IX.221 SE(B) (= Nov/Dec 91 BC) which quotes the
following line from a formal dispatch of the current King Arsakes to the Greek authorities and
citizens in Babylon:

“[…] which from the day when my father Arsakes, King of Kings, had turned to fate, until the day
when I [----]”
(Sachs/Hunger Ast.Diary No.-90).

This text not only establishes the identity of Gotarzes’ father (no Arsakid monarch other than
Mithradates II was registered as King of Kings in the Babylonian records until Frahates III in 66
BC) but also that Mithradates II perished in autumn 91 BC or a little earlier. In doing so it further
shows that the Arsakid King Mithradates of 87 BC attested by Josephus (Arch.xiii.385-6) cannot
be Mithradates II and so provides the personal name of one of his heirs documented by the
coinage (i.e. Mithradates III, king 87-78 BC).
This in turn resolves a curious anomaly of the old chronology (i.e. that Mithradates II died in 87
BC) with respect to the Josephus passage, according to which the Seleukid king Demetrios III,
taken into Parthian custody at Beroia (Aleppo) in summer or early auutmn 87 (his latest coinage is
dated SEM 225), was held in all honour by King Mithradates until he died from disease (Josephus
Arch.xiii.386: Μιθριδάτης δὲ ὁ τῶν Πάρθων βασιλεὺς τὸν Δημήτριον εἶχεν ἐν τιμῇ τῇ πάσῃ
μέχρι νόσῳ κατέστρεψε Δημήτριος τὸν βίον).
Mithradates II was thought to have died around the same time as Demetrios' capture, and while his
reign could easily be extended to accommodate Demetrios' reception, it would be much harder (in
fact impossible) to suppose that Mithradates II had time enough to gain a reputation significant
enough to come to the notice of historians for his generous treatment of the young Seleukid, or
that Mithradates II outlived Demetrios although the latter died from disease. Josephus' account is
clear enough that Demetrios died some considerable time later and that Mithradates gained this
reputation during the intervening years. Thus the generous host was Mithradates III, who died
about summer 78 BC, the terminus ante quem for Demetrios III's death.
 4

Avroman I parchment (E.H.Minns JHS 35, 1915, 22-65); the principal queens of Gotarzes I.

Dated Apellaios, (SEM) year 225 (i.e. Nov 88 BC).

Found in the mountains of the Median-Assyrian frontier, the preamble of this document provides
the full and formal (Greek) titulature of Gotarzes I at that date (some 7 months before his death),
as well as that of his three principal queens;

1. Basileus Basileo:n Arsakes Euergetes Dikaios Epiphanes kai Philhellen

2. Queen Siake, his same-father sister and wife,

3. Queen Aryazate, who is also called Automa, daughter of Basileus Megas Tigranes, and his
wife,

4. Queen Azate, his same-father sister and wife.

This is particularly important in showing that Tigran of Armenia was allied by marriage to the
family of Mithradates II, several years into their war with the house of Sanatruk (Automa was
evidently renamed with the more Iranian “Aryazate” at the Arsakid court).

The Problem of Orodes I.

His ancestry is not on record, nor even implied by his coinage titulature and remains speculative.
The evidence of his coinage portraiture is complicated and difficult.
His portraits depict a middle-aged man, approximately the same age as Gotarzes and Mithradates
III when they came to the throne, perhaps a little older (his beard is sometimes longer), but hardly
so old as Sanatruk. His portraits are also usually very similar to those of Mithradates III,
suggesting that they were brothers of approximately the same age. But they probably had different
mothers.
If my theory about the marriage policy of Mithradates II's sons is correct, then his sister Izpubarza
as his principal queen would make him a son of Mithradates II.

He may be the same man as Orodes attested as chief controller(?) (rab kumarri) of temples and
[….]s of the Parthian empire in March 107 BC (Sachs/Hunger Ast.Diary No.-107C, Rev.16: on 7
Mar 107 BC an unnamed “Subaraean” [=Parthian] who had been appointed as the representative
of this obviously high ranking court official Orodes, arrived in Babylon from Media).
This appears to be the earliest record of the name Orodes.

His known actions favoured Sanatruk’s cause (to the extent that they embarrassed and eventually
destroyed Mithradates III), but his coinage nowhere shares the characteristic stags totem and
bull’s horn decorations on the tiaras of Sanatruk and his heir Frahates III. Instead his types are
distinguished by the prominence accorded to the fleur-de-lys device, which is the symbol of Susa
(“place of the lily”) and appears on his tiara both on big silver from Seleukeia on Tigris, and on
drachms thought to have been struck in Media Magna.
 5
The history of Sanatruk’s line (so far as it is known) shows hostility between it and the Elamite
house of Kamnaskirids, directly attested during the reign of Frahates III (Plutarch Pompeius 36),
and this in turn suggests that the Kamnaskirids were allied by marriage with the family of
Mithradates II and stood to lose standing and influence if Sanatruk’s family prevailed.
It should also be noted that (in contrast to Gotarzes and Mithradates III) Orodes I’s formal epithets
(on the S32 and S34 coinage) fail to honour either father or brother (probably the final nail in the
coffin of any notion that he may have been a younger brother of old Sanatruk), and stress his own
deeds (“Benefactor”).

Overall it looks like Orodes I was a (slightly) younger brother of Gotarzes and Mithradates III,
with a mother who was both an Elamite princess and from a rival family to the Kamnaskirids
(perhaps a daughter of Tigraios). So with little chance of gaining the throne in normal
circumstances, he sought to advance himself via unusual circumstances, thus probably assisting
Sanatruk’s cause from the first by betraying his own father and brothers. His special connection
with Susa (as indicated by his fleur-de-lys symbol) indicates that he may have had a role in
betraying Elam and Susa to Sanatruk at the very beginning of the internal wars. In any case
Frahates III seems to have named one of his eldest sons for him (Orodes II, born ca.80 BC) as a
tribute to his assistance and support; perhaps especially for having kept the conflict going when
Sanatruk’s fortunes were at their lowest ebb (mid and late reign of Mithradates III).

Frahates III
Attested as son of Sanatruk (both by personal name) in the Greco-Roman literature - Appian
Mith.104 (Phraates and Sintrikes), and Phlegon of Tralleis (ed.Jacoby FGrH 257 F12.7: καὶ
Σινατρούκην τὸν Πάρθων βασιλέα τελευτήσαντα διεδέξατο Φραάτης ὁ ἐπικληθεὶς Θεός).
The Romans had good reason to know these details; after he gained Babylonia and the Euphrates
frontier in 67 BC, Frahates III was in negotiations and good relations with Pompeius Magnus from
early 66 BC until the alliance soured in the summer of 64 (Cassius Dio bk.37).
This is underlined by the common characteristics of their coinage; the bull’s horn and Skythic
stags decorating the tiara of S33 (Sanatruk), and the bull’s horn on the tiara of S37 and S39 (the
two types of Frahates III wearing tiara), and stag-ornaments on the S39 tiara.

Frahates’ approximate birth date must be worked out with reference to the known dates of his sons
and grandsons, and the portraiture of his extensive coinage.
His earliest portraits (S36 and S37) depict a young man with short beard, apparently in his
twenties and certainly no older than 30. These were struck from 68 and in 67 BC respectively, so
that he cannot have been born any earlier than 98 BC and more likely closer to 95. The portraiture
on his latest type (S38), which was struck ca.65-57 BC vary somewhat, including both middle-
aged features with long beard and much younger looks with a short growth.
His grandson Pakur I was born in or shortly before 65 BC, so that Orodes II must have been born
in or before 80/79 BC. Thus Frahates III’s own birth date ca.95 BC in conformity to his coinage
portraiture is (just) possible and must be adopted. This means that he was ca.27 when his first
coinage was struck in 68, ca.28 when the (very youthful looking) S37 Ts were struck at Seleukeia
in 67, ca.30 when the S38 series began, and ca.38 when it ended (with his own death) in 57 BC.
A birth date in the mid 90s for this late son but principal heir of Sanatruk also fits neatly with the
politics which induced Sanatruk to openly rebel against Mithradates II in about spring 91 BC.
 6

Teleonike, Queen of Frahates III by 63 BC.

Attested by a fragment of an Astronomical Diary dealing with Nisannu 249 SE(B) = 21 Apr-19
May 63 BC (Te-le-u-ni-qe-e), this (evidently Greek) woman was probably the mother of Orodes
II, and should be the most notable of the Milesian/Ionian courtesans who produced Arsakid kings
(Plutarch Crassus 32fin.). Also, Orodes II was well educated in Greek literature (Plut.Crassus 33).
She seems to have been elevated to principal queen following the death (ca.67 BC) of Frahates
III’s initial queen (identity unknown), and with some delay and dispute at the court whether she
should be so elevated, as indicated by the period when Frahates III’s mother “[…]-ishtar” assumed
the role of queen-consort (cuneiform colophon dated 14.IX.182/246 SE[B] = 28 Dec 66 BC).

Mithradates IV & Orodes II

Attested as brothers in the Latin and Greek literature (Justinus xlii.4.2-4; Appian Syr.51, Cassius
Dio xxxix.56.2).
Mithradates is twice referred to by Cassius Dio, by name, in connection with Media, first in
summer 67 BC when he commanded a Parthian auxiliary force in the army of Tigran of Armenia
when already the latter's son-in-law (xxxvi.14.2: Mithridates “from Media”), and again on the
occasion of his and Orodes’ joint murder of Frahates III, and his subsequent expulsion by Orodes
(xxxix.56.2: governor of Media). The evidence of the family genealogy as a whole will not permit
a birth date any earlier than 81 BC, but this is too young to already be Frahates III’s Median satrap
by 68 BC and sent to command a Parthian contingent in foreign service the following winter or
spring. The solution probably lies in the mangled coin legends (of S41.12 issue) which seem to
refer to him as “also called son of Phraates Euergetes”. I.e. he was probably an adopted son of
Frahates III (as suggested to me in private correspondence by Dr.Assar on the basis of those
unusual coin legends), probably natural son of that Arsakes who seems to have led an expedition
into Arachotia (as suggested by Alberto Simonetta, E&W 1978, p.163) and Gandhara against the
Indo-Saka King Vonones ca.65-58 BC (there striking monolingual but square AE coinage with
mangled legends which seem to identify him as “Basileus Theos Arsakes” and “King’s brother”).
However that may be, it would appear that Frahates III’s proper heirs by his first queen (identity
unknown, but probably a Saka princess) all died young in the course of his (and his father’s)
struggle against Arsakes XVI, so that he was forced to arrange for new heirs (apparently in the
period 65-64 BC), first by adopting his eldest nephew (i.e. Mithradates IV) and then by elevating
the eldest of his children by secondary wives (namely, Orodes II) to primary status, by making his
Ionian concubine Teleonike his primary queen (see above on Teleonike).
This would also help to explain and partly mitigate the savage hostility between Mithradates IV
and Orodes II in their wars against one another. I.e. brothers only according to legal forms, and
first-cousins by birth.
The coinage portraits of Mithradates IV indicate a youngish man, in his twenties or early thirties
across 57-54 BC.
Similarly Orodes II looks young on his earliest coinage, and hardly the senex asserted by Justinus
(xlii.4.14-15), even on his latest types.
Orodes left 30 sons by his numerous secondary wives, including his successor Frahates IV, and
the latter murdered all his brothers, his father and his own eldest son (Justinus xlii.4.14-5.2).
 7

Pakur I
Cassius Dio tells us (xl.28.3) of his extreme youth, apparently not yet formally an adult, when
sent out as titular leader of the first serious Parthian invasion of Syria in 51; so probably only
turned 14 in the course of 51 BC.
Certified as son of Orodes II by many western sources (e.g. Justinus xlii.4.5, 4.11, Cassius Dio
xl.28.3, xlviii.24.4, Plutarch Crassus 33.1), most notably the contemporary letters of Cicero,
commanding Cilicia province pro cos. in 51 BC when prince Pakur was titular commander of the
first serious Parthian invasion of Syria (cf.ad Att.v.18, v.20, ad Fam.xv.1). Indeed he was the
apple of his father’s eye, and Orodes’ grief at his unexpected death (in battle against P.Ventidius)
was profound (cf.Justinus xlii.4.11-14).
The date of his death was the same (Roman Calendar) day as the battle of Carrhae (Festus Rufus
Brev.18, Ovid Fasti vi.465ff.), which was 9 June (Ovid Fasti vi.461-68), whereas when Pakur was
slain Caesar’s initial version of the Julian Calendar was in operation (albeit already improperly
intercalated by M.Lepidus pont.max.; see Chris Bennett's papers in ZPE 142, 221-40 and 147,
165-8). The year of his death (38 BC) is attested by Cassius Dio (bk.49) and by Eutropius (vii.5).

The “accession” ostraka from Nisa.

Ostrakon 2-L:
(undated) “Arsakes King, son of grandson of Arsakes“

Ostrakon 1760:
“Year 157, Arsakes King, son of son of (Friya)patak,
son of brother son (i.e.nephew) of Arsakes” (AE[P] 157 = Oct 92-Sept 91)

Ostrakon Nov307:
“Year 180, Arsakes King,
son of grandson of Friyapatak, [son of brother son of Arsakes]” (AE[P] 180 = Oct 69-Sept 68)

Ostrakon Nov366:
“[Year 1]70, Arsakes [King]
[ ------(several lines illegible)--------]” (AE[P] 170 = Oct 79-Sept 78)

Ostraka 1760 and Nov307 must be considered together since they show the kingships of a father
and son both in the direct line of Friyapatak, and prove that the latter was great-nephew of
Arsakes I. Owing to the date the king recognized at Nisa in AE(M) 157 can only be Mithradates II
or Sanatruk. Gotarzes I is excluded because he was son of Mithradates II (see above) and thus
cannot have been grandson of Friyapatak. While the political complexities of internal war periods
should not be ignored, neither should they be exaggerated, especially at the outset. Since this
document belongs approximately to the earliest period of Santruk’s rebellion whereas Mithradates
II had been king since 122 (or 121) and died in summer/autumn 91 BC, it almost certainly reflects
Santruka’s taking of Parthia proper and its capital from Mithradates II, and probably that he
defeated and killed the latter in a great battle in Parthia.
 8

Dr.G.R.F.Assar's various theories on the sequences and dating of the undated Susa bronzes require
Sanatruk to have begun his rebellion several years earlier, and taken Susa those several years
before Parthia Nisaia. But this dislocates Sanatruk's use of the Nikator title from Assar's own
belief in a significant battle in Parthia or Media in which he destroyed Mithradates II.
Furthermore such a chronology is not compatible with Mithradates' campaigning in the far west
ca.92 BC, apparently against the Kommagenian Queen Laodike, when Antiochos Eusebes came to
her assistance and either fell in battle (Josephus, Arch.xiii.371, probably by a slip) or else went
into Parthian captivity (Eusebius Armenian Chron.; cf.the Photian summary of Arrian's Τα µετα
Αλεξανδρον which says, Jacoby FGrH 156 F1, that Lysimachos was destroyed in battle against the
Thracian King Seuthes in 322 BC, when he was actually defeated and made a prisoner and lived
more than four decades longer).

Ostrakon Nov307 from 69-68 BC fits in perfectly with the succession from Sanatruk to his young
son Frahates III, and the latter's capture of Parthia Nisaia. The rival Mithradateian king of the
time, the S30 King (Arsakes XVI) was certainly born in the late 90s BC and so might (just) have
been a very late son of Mithradates II, but more likely he was the latter’s grandson and son of
Mithradates III, and if so he cannot match the genealogy presented in the document any more than
Gotarzes I in 92-1 BC. Furthermore, it is known for certain from cuneiform and literary evidence
that Frahates III, coming from eastern bases, captured Babylonia in 67 BC, thus reducing Arsakes
XVI to the level of a fugitive. In this context it is impossible to imagine any likely circumstances
in which Arsakes XVI could have (re)secured recognition as king at Nisa in the course of AE year
180.
Thus the assignment of the ostrakon 1760 genealogy to the elderly Sanatruk and that of Nov307 to
his son and heir Frahates III matches what other evidence we have, while any other combination is
either impossible or unlikely in the extreme.
Friyapatak is evidently prominent in the genealogies of Sanatruk and Frahates III because he was
the only previous ruler in their direct lineage. If they were descended from the founder of the
empire, Mithradates I, the latter’s name would almost certainly have been included in these
lineages in preference to the relatively insignificant Friyapatak, together with his formal title as
king. The absence of the royal title from Friyapatak’s name shows that he (like Arsakes I before
him) did not bear that title which, indeed, was probably first adopted by Artaban I the liberator of
the Arsakid state from the Seleukids in the 180s (this may safely be assumed on the analogy of the
Seleukid strategoi in Armenia, Artaxias and Zariadris, who became kings as a result of Magnesia;
Strabo Geogr.xi.14.5, 15.1)

The further great advantage of this resolution of the genealogical evidence from Nisa is that it
provides two distinct lines battling it out for supremacy during the “Dark Age” internal wars 91-
ca.63 BC, the house of Mithradates II (probably Persian, and nominally or per adoption descended
from Arsakes I) and the rebel collateral line of Sanatruk (which ultimately won out) descended
from Arsakes I’s brother.
This in turn would explain the genesis of the two conflicting traditions in our literary sources on
Arsakid origins, one of which (followed by Arrian, probably created by Artavasdes of Armenia on
advice from the court of Orodes II) stresses the importance of Arsakes I’s brother Tiridates (who
reigns for 37 years after Arsakes’ 2 years) while the other (followed by Pompeius Trogus in his
books 41-42 and by Strabo of Amaseia, and probably the authentic history put together by
Apollodoros of Artemita) ignores Tiridates altogether.
 9
The first appearance of the “Artaxshahrakan” in the Nisa ostraka from 92 BC should also be
associated with the initial moves of Sanatruk (who appears to have held a great north-eastern
frontiers margraviate based on Merv and Herat), in this case probably the honoring of his own
father ahead of Mithradates II, which caused the open rupture between the reigning king and his
senior warlord.

The genealogy of the king of ostrakon Nov366 is either lost, or was never spelled out, but the date
AE [1]70 indicates that it registered the recognition of Orodes I in Parthia Nisaia following the
death of Mithradates III in about summer 78 BC (and before the “advent” of Arsakes XVI about a
year later). Thus a grievous loss, since Orodes I’s ancestry is uncertain (see above). If, as argued
above, Orodes I was a younger son of Mithradates II, this missing genealogy would have read:
“Arsakes [King, who is called Orodes / son of Arsakes King].
(personal name included because the male lineage would be identical to those of his brothers
Gotarzes I and Mithradates III).

Ostrakon 2-L belongs to the generation of the brothers Frahates I and Mithradates II, and almost
certainly refers to the accession of one of those kings. It also matches Justinus' statement (xli.6.9)
that Arsakes I was great-grandfather (proavus) of Mithradates I.
But it contradicts Justinus’ evidence that Frahates and Mithradates were sons of Priapatius
(xli.5.9). However this contradiction is resolved, it is certain that this passage of Justinus is
historically flawed, something underlined by his naming of only two brothers when his own
account later shows at least three (including the paternal uncle who succeeded Frahates II), and by
the fact that Justinus’ account of the early rulers puts Mithradates in the fifth place among them,
whereas Paulus Orosius (HAP v.4.16, probably following Pompeius Trogus because of the use of
Mithradates' personal name) states that he was the sixth.

The ruler missing from Justinus xli.5 appears in Pompeius Trogus’ Prologus to bk.41; the
Artabanus bracketed with the two greatest early Arsakids, Arsakes I and Mithradates I (the latter
called “Tigranes” by a slip, owing to the prominence of Tigran of Armenia in bk.40. But there was
no Parthian king called Tigranes, and the summarized achievements attributed to the Tigranes of
Prol.41 match those of Mithradates I).

The simplest and most likely explanation of these problems is that this Artaban I was included by
Trogus in the Prologus because he liberated the Arsakid state from vassalage to the Seleukids in
the 180s BC, shortly after the Magnesia battle, but accidentally omitted by Justinus who through
the same inattention assigned the details of his reign and succession to Artaban’s unimportant
predecessor (the Seleukid vassal) Friyapatak, who struck no coinage.
Thus Artaban I should be the fourth ruler, reigning 15 years, father of Frahates and Mithradates
(both details are assigned by Justinus to Friyapatak in the passage which is certainly faulty), and
son of Arsakes II, as indicated by the 2-L ostrakon which makes Frahates and Mithradates great-
grandsons of Arsakes I in male line. The above stemma is arranged according to these deductions.
It is also supposed that the rulership passed from the line of Arsakes I to that of his brother
(Tiridates) for the reign of Friyapatak because Artaban I son of Arsakes II was still a child when
his father died, but that it immediately reverted to Artaban I upon Friyapatak’s death. Indeed the
latter was probably an acting ruler for the true heir, in much the same way that Attalos II stood in
for Attalos III at Pergamon, and Antigonos Doson for Philip V in Makedonia.
 10

This solution is also based on the facts that Justinus does not directly state that Mithradates and
Frahates were sons of Friyapatak, which is only implied by the structure of his text; and to repeat,
precisely that part of his text which we know for certain (from the 2-L ostrakon) is historically
erroneous. Furthermore that he omits to record the relationship between Arsakes II and his
successor Friyapatak, while specifying that the latter was the 3rd Arsakid rex (understand 3rd ruler,
rather than 3rd king, as we know from the coinage that neither Arsakes I nor Arsakes II bore royal
titles).
In the next sentence he compares Friyapatak's assumption of the name Arsakes, and the tradition
this established, with the Roman practice of using Caesar and Augustus. This detail is from
Justinus' own time and perspective (it cannot come from Trogus' text, written under Augustus) and
so marks a clear break in his reading of/attention to Trogus' text to consider Roman history and
imperial titulature since the days of Augustus and Pompeius Trogus.
It is the very next sentence which contains the information about Friyapatak's reign length and
sons. It does not begin with Friyapatak's name but the pronoun hic, so that, as already noted, he
does not expressly say that Friyapatak was the ruler and father. Instead the rules of Latin
grammar refer us back to Friyapatak (Justinus' “Priapatius”) as the last-named rex/ruler.
Given this break in concentration on Trogus' Parthian historical subject and shift to his own time
and its historical perspectives, and since ostrakon 2-L proves that Justinus has omitted a ruler
(Arsakes IV, the successor of Friyapatak) precisely at this point in his text, it would appear that
this occurred because when he resumed his summary of Trogus' information, faulty memory told
him that he had already mentioned Artaban I's succession to Friyapatak and kingship, but in fact
had not done so; so that hic really refers to Artaban I, who had done mighty things (above all,
reasserted Arsakid independence and sovereignty) rather than Priapatius/Friyapatak as in the
received text.

This argument presupposes that Justinus never made any careful revision of his epitome,
something which rests solidly on the abundance of slips and errors to be found throughout his text,
especially concerning names and kingdoms; e.g., in this same 41st book, his rendering of the
Diodoti of Bactria (still there in the Prologus, and confirmed by coinage legends) as “Theodoti”.
It is possible that the missing “Artabanus passage” was accidentally omitted by an influential early
copyist rather than by Justinus himself. But since plausible grounds to explain how the epitomist
himself wandered away from his main subject can be identified, there is no need to blame any
other.
The main point is that we don't have to account for an explicit statement that Friyapatak was father
of Frahates and Mithradates, only a grammatically implied relationship stretching back across
several sentences. This is a vastly less difficult hurdle in the context that we now know for sure
that a king has been omitted here.

Dr.Assar has argued for an alternative interpretation of the 2-L ostrakon; that it records an entirely
novel Arsakes IV grandson of Arsakes I who is not one of the brothers Frahates I and Mithradates
I (whom he wishes to maintain as sons of Friyapatak and great-grandsons of Arsakes I's brother).
This notion is possible but highly unlikely. It must further suppose that this otherwise unattested
king also died young and without heirs, so that the rulership swapped from the line of Arsakes I to
the line of Tiridates (Friyapatak), then back to the Arsakes I line (Arsakes IV) and then back again
to the Tiridates line (Frahates I).
 11

This would mean that Justinus has made an even bigger mess of things (by omitting this Arsakes
IV son of Arsakes II) than in my reconstruction (which involves the simple oversight and
omission of Artaban I's reign, a reign which is attested by Trogus Prol.41 anyway), although the
whole basis for it is an underlying supposition (wish?) that Justinus must be right about the reign
length of Friyapatak and paternity of the brothers Frahates I and Mithradates I.
These awkward and contradictory features of the Assar theory are further emphasized by his
treatment of his invented Arsakes IV, who is only really introduced into history (and immediately
removed again after a short reign, without any posterity; and therefore cannot equate with the
significant ruler Artabanus of Trogus Prol.41) as a means of accounting for the 2-L ostrakon
without having to give up Friyapatak's paternity of Frahates and Mithradates as it is implied but
not actually stated in Justinus' text.
Furthermore the Assar theory absolutely requires that Friyapatak was the first Arsakid to take the
royal title (although he lacks it in the two ostraka genealogies that name him), and must needs
dispute Justinus' plain statement in a later (non corrupted) part of his text that Arsakes I was great-
grandfather (proavus) of Mithradates I.
According to the interpretation proposed here and in the stemma above, all the evidence matches
up consistently and smoothly via the relatively simple proposition that the error which has
certainly crept into Justinus' text at xli.5 (the succession from Friyapatak to Frahates I) is his
accidental omission of the name and principal achievements of Artaban I of Trogus Prol.41.

One final matter should be addressed in this regard; a reasonable objection to my theory made by
Dr.Assar.
Otto Mørkholm's secure attribution of the S33 type to King Sanatruk means that the great rebel
styled himself ΘΕΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ ΝΙΚΑΤΟΡΟΣ on his coinage throughout his reign. Therefore son of a
Theos, or deified prince.
Assar pointed out that according to my stemma (as above), far from being son of a ruler
distinguished enough to earn divine honours, Sanatruk is son of a prince who never reigned and
whose very name is not even known. This fact appears to be crucial to his own belief that
Sanatruk must be a son of Mithradates I and therefore (since Nisa ostrakon 1760 proves that
Sanatruk was grandson of Friyapatak) that Mithradates was son of Friyapatak as the received
Justinus text implies, and not son of the King Arsakes IV grandson of Arsakes I attested by the
2-L ostrakon. This objection must be overcome for the above stemma to stand, and it can be
rebutted in several ways.

The first point has already been mentioned above in the discussion of Nisa ostraka 1760 and
Nov307. If Mithradates I (greatest of all the Arsakid kings; creator of a vast empire out of a
previously strong but modest dominion) were father of Sanatruk and grandfather of Frahates III,
then the ostraka genealogies should have spelled it out with his name and royal title mentioned in
the lineage – especially in Nov307 as Frahates' grandfather. His absence and the presence of
Friyapatak (in different genealogic generations) in both texts strongly indicate that Friyapatak was
the most important ancestor of Sanatruk and his son in a lineage which could only be traced back
to Arsakes I via his brother.

Secondly it appears that the “Artaxshahrakan” of the Nisa ostraka from 92 BC attests Sanatruk's
deification of an ancestor, and presumably his father, named Artaxerxes.
 12

Finally, coin legends have by no means the same qualitative value as the genealogies of the Old
Nisa texts, which exhibit male bloodlines, drawn up inside administrative offices and retained
there. Coin legends, on the other hand, were among the most widely disseminated expressions of
themselves and their desired public image which Parthian or Hellenistic monarchs ever produced,
or could hope to produce. Furthermore, they had to be brief, so affect and affectation was at a
premium in their formulation. They regularly made claims that were dramatic, imposing and
exaggerated. Never more so than during the internal dynastic war period of the “Dark Age” when
Sanatruk reigned and struck his unusually uniform coinage.
We also find theopator among the coinage epithets of the Lagid-sponsored counterfeit Seleukid
Alexandros I Balas, who claimed to be a son of Antiochos Epiphanes for cogent political
purposes; it has nothing to do with the status of his real father.
While the Nisa ostrakon 1760 shows that the anti-king Sanatruk was certainly an Arsakid in
collateral line (i.e. what we may term a Tiridatid) and by no means a usurper in the same degree as
Alexandros Balas, neither may Sanatruk's very public insistence that he was a theopator, in the
politically charged context of attacking the reigning king of three decades standing, be taken as
objective evidence that he really was the son of a deified ruler. On the other hand it cannot be pure
fantasy and must have some coherent meaning. Balas was asserting a claim to be son of Antiochos
Epiphanes because he was fighting against the legitimate lineage of Epiphanes' brother Seleukos
IV (i.e. Demetrios I Soter).
Since a filial relationship tying Sanatruk to the great founder of the Arsakid empire Mithradates I
seems to be unattested (and indeed refuted by the absence of Mithradates' personal name from the
ostraka genealogies belonging to Sanatruk and his son Frahates III), it may be that Sanatruk was
advertising an adoption by Mithradates I (e.g. in the period before the birth of his eventual, very
late born, primary heir Frahates II). But such a theory is not really necessary if, as suggested
above, the “Artaxshahrakan” of the Nisa ostraka attests a deification of his real father named
Artaxerxes as a provocation to Mithradates II on the eve of the internal wars.

M.K.Passehl,
2003; vers.3 Sept 2007