VII

ARIA, SOGDIANA, BACTRIA, AND ARACHOSIA

ACHAIA IN ARIA

Strabo (11.10.1) mentions three cities in Aria—ARTAKOANA/ARTAKAENA, Alexandreia, and Achaia—that he says bore the names of their founders.¹

*    *    *    *

1. See the discussions in ACHAIA in Parthia, ALEXANDREIA in Aria, and HERAKLEIA/ACHAIS (ACHAIA) in Aria.

Aï KHANOUM

Between 1965 and 1978, excavation at the site of the village of Aï Khanoum at the junction of the Amu Darya (Oxus) and Kokcha rivers in eastern Bactria revealed the existence of a previously unknown Hellenistic settlement.¹ Among other things, archaeologists uncovered the remains of a heroön, a gymnasium, a theater that could seat around 6,000 people, two temples, private dwellings, administrative areas, and a palace complex, as well as inscriptions, coins, and abundant ceramic evidence.² The site, with a natural acropolis c. 60 meters high, was secured by strong fortification walls. The lower town was not laid out on a regular grid plan.³ Although not situated on any of the great trade routes, the settlement was adjacent to fertile agricultural land and was located near various mining operations; furthermore, it served a military function, standing as a bulwark against nomadic tribes to the north, and may well have also served as the administrative center of the region.⁴

An inscription that was found, probably in situ, in the pronaos of the heroön contains two texts. The first is an epigram; it states that a certain Klearchos had arranged for the transcription of certain precepts of old wisdom attributed to the Seven Wise Men of Greece that were exhibited at Holy Pytho, namely, Delphi, in the temenos of Kineas. The second text is the copy of one of the series of these so-called Delphic maxims.⁵ The unique Greek character of this inscription, found more than 5,000 kilometers from Delphi, has frequently been noted by modern scholars. We may also note the following: (a) the name Kineas is probably either Thessalian or Macedonian, and (b) the reference to the temenos of Kineas indicates he was probably considered to be the founder of the Hellenistic settlement. We do not know if he did this on his own initiative or—as is more probable —at the command of a ruling monarch. If the latter case, we may ask: Which king? Most probably it was either Alexander or Seleukos I. On the basis of the extant evidence one cannot be any more specific than that.⁶

A second inscription was found in a building identified as a gymnasium. It records a dedication to Hermes and Herakles—the traditional deities of the gymnasium—made by Triballos and Straton, the sons of Straton.⁷ We get additional information about proper names used at Aï Khanoum from ink inscriptions on funerary urns, stone, and fragments of jars stored in the palace treasury.⁸ An agorano[mos] is mentioned on a stamped amphora handle that was apparently of local origin.⁹

Excavation at the site has revealed both Oriental and Hellenic influences in the material remains. The construction and the basic architectural techniques—for example, mud-brick masonry, the use of flat roofs even for public monuments—were essentially Oriental. On the other hand, many other architectural techniques and decorations were Greek: for example, stone blocks laid without the use of mortar, fitted with anathyroses, and fastened by metal dowels and cramps sealed by molten lead; flat Corinthian tiles with cover tiles and antefixes at the end of eaves cover tiles.¹⁰ Of the various buildings excavated, the gymnasium, the theater, and the heroon—that is, buildings that correspond to Greek customs and institutions—are essentially Greek.¹¹ On the other hand, the palace reflects both eastern and western influences, while the plan of the arsenal was primarily derived from an Oriental model; the same is true of the two temples, the stepped podium/sacred platform on the acropolis, and the residential houses.¹² The private houses reflect central Asiatic and Persian rather than Greek influences. The artifacts found in the houses and in the palace—such as double-eared amphorae, certain drinking bowls, imitation kraters, so-called Megarian bowls, Laconian keys, rectangular grindstones with horizontal handles, loom weights, ink pots, so-called strygils which athletes used to scrape their bodies, chairs made of ivory turned on a lathe, and sundials—clearly reflect Greek influences.¹³ Greek models and traditions can also be seen elsewhere at the site: for example, in fragments of an Ionic capital, a herm (found in the gymnasium), a funerary stele with the portrait of an ephebe (?), a woman leaning on a pillar, a standing male wearing a crown, and a fountain waterspout of Greek type.¹⁴

The palace complex was large: it covered a rectangular area of c. 350 × 250 meters.¹⁵ P. Bernard noted that its very size “reinforces the impression that the palace is a royal one,” and suggested that the palace “simultaneously served three functions: it was a state structure, a residence and a treasury.” The treasury of the palace was apparently kept in the northwestern building of the complex. Among other things found were lapis lazuli, garnet, turquoise, crystal, and asbestos as well as jewelry, stone plates, ivory, and vases that had contained incense, olive oil, and cash.¹⁶ The contents of each vase was written in Greek on its shoulder, as well as the names of the persons responsible for it: a clear indication of a developed financial and administrative system. On the extant examples, the first person named was always a Greek, presumably the director of the treasury; the others, who were Greek or Oriental, were probably subordinates.¹⁷ Incidentally, the Greek, Macedonian, and Oriental personal names that survive on these and other objects provide some indication (a) of the makeup of the settlement population and (b) that many of the colonists originated in northern Greece and Macedonia. The palace was rebuilt on a more monumental scale in the second quarter of the second century B.C. It is possible that the rebuilding of the palace took place under the aegis of Eukratides, the last major Graeco-Bactrian king, who ruled from c. 170 to c. 145 B.C.¹⁸ An inscription on one of the vases found in the treasury of the palace mentions “year 24.” This may refer to the regnal year or an era of Eukratides; if so, the reference would be to 147 B.C., in other words, some two or three years before the pillaging of the treasury by invading nomads.¹⁹

Earthen impressions of a papyrus and a parchment text preserve fragments of a philosophical dialogue, probably by Aristotle, and fragmentary lines in iambic trimeters. These fragments suggest there may have been a library at the settlement. The importance of dramatic performances in the cultural life of the settlement is indicated by the discovery of the theater and a fountain gargoyle representing a mask of comedy.²⁰

As regards religious life in the settlement at Aï Khanoum, I have already mentioned the dedication to Hermes and Herakles. In addition, a bronze statuette of Herakles has been discovered. And in the temple à redans archaeologists have discovered a fragmentary statue that Bernard suggested might have been of Zeus.²¹ Although one finds gods from the Greek pantheon on coinage from Aï Khanoum,²² the architecture of the sanctuaries thus far unearthed at Aï Khanoum reflects strong Oriental influence. In addition, the stepped podium/sacred platform recalls the observation of Herodotus (1.131) and Strabo (15.3.13) that the Persians worshipped their gods in the open air. Other divinities attested include a female figurine carved from a bone, apparently of local tradition, as well as Cybele; the importance of the latter is attested by a representation of her on a gold-covered silver plaque dated to the first half of the third century B.C. There is no extant evidence for Indian or Buddhist cults at Aï Khanoum, although Indian religious symbols appear on Indo-Greek coins found at the site and on a coral pendant.²³

Among the coins found at the site were ten unstruck planchets. The discovery of these indicates that there had been a mint at Aï Khanoum. The (mainly) bronze coins found at the site include those of Seleukos I, and Antiochos I and II, followed by the Graeco-Bactrian Diodotos I and II, Euthydemos I, Demetrios I, Euthydemos II, Antimachos I, Demetrios II, Agathokles I, Apollodotos I, and Eukratides I—that is, from the early third to the mid-second century B.C.²⁴ Silver coins—in addition to those found in the hoards—and one gold have also been found at the site.²⁵

There is evidence for the intensive use of irrigation canals in the plain of Aï Khanoum.²⁶ The settlement was apparently destroyed around the mid-second century B.C. by nomadic invasions.²⁷ Evidence for the presence of invaders at Aï Khanoum may be seen in the discovery in the treasury of a silver ingot bearing an inscription in an unknown (Bactrian?) language.²⁸

The ancient name is still not definitely known.²⁹

*    *    *    *

In general see P. Bernard, PBA 53 (1967) 71–95; id. in DAI 1829–1979 108–20; id. in Scientific American Ancient Cities (New York, 1994) 66–75 ( = Scientific American 247 [1982] 148–59); id., JA 264 (1976) 245–75; id. in Afghanistan 81–129; id. in Civilizations 2:104–23; id., Parthica 11 (2009) 33–56; MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 198–99, 208–9, 218–30; Ball, Gazetteer Afghanistan no. 18; Rapin in Greek Colonists 329–42; Orth, Diadochenzeit 106–7; Fraser, Cities 155–56; Sherwin-White, OCD³ s.v. “Ai Khanoum”; Holt, Thundering Zeus 43–46, 51–52, 61–62, et passim, 140–71 (coins); Posch, Baktrien 15–52, 88–96; Leriche in After Alexander 140–44; Ball, Monuments of Afghanistan 149–51; Mairs, Hellenistic Far East 26–28.

For the results of excavation at Aï Khanoum see Bernard et al. in Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique francaise en Afghanistan, Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum ( = Aï Khanoum). For the results of surveys and excavation in the Aï Khanoum plain see Gentelle, Lyonnet, and Gardin in Prospections vols. 1–3. On the publication program see also G. Fussman, JAOS 116 (1996) 245–52, 258–59. See also the preliminary reports, published primarily in CRAI and BEFEO; and the bibliography in S. Veuve, BCH 106 (1982) 23 n. 1; Rapin, RA (1987) 41 n. 1; Narain in India 115 n. 1. See also the bibliography of P. Bernard in BAI 12 (1998) 3–11; and id. in Bibliografija Nauchnykh Trudov Inostrannogo Chlena Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk Polja Bernara (Moscow, 2009) 8–29. For a retrospective overview see Bernard, CRAI (2001) 971–1029. On the plundering at the site see, for example, P. Bernard, J.-F. Jarrige, and R. Besenval, CRAI (2002) 1421–28 and earlier articles cited in n. 57.

For the inscriptions found at Aï Khanoum see Rapin in Aï Khanoum 8:387–89; Bernard in Greek Archaeology 75–81; I. Estremo Oriente 322–86; Euphrat 102–3 and IGIAC 97–150.

1. There is extensive evidence for agricultural cultivation and irrigation in the plain of Aï Khanoum in the pre-Greek period; see Gentelle, Étude géographique 143; id. in Prospections vol. 1 passim; Bernard in DAI 1829–1979 109; Francfort in Aï Khanoum 9 (forthcoming); Mairs in Foundation Myths (forthcoming). Furthermore, in a walled, circular town settlement 2 km north of the northern wall of Aï Khanoum, sherds dating from as early as the Achaemenid period have been found; see J.-C. Gardin (BEFEO 63 [1976] 78–79), who also suggested that “in Persian times, the circular town was the main settlement in the Aï Khanum plain”; and Gardin in Prospections 3:41–42, 45–46, 136, 144–45, figs. 3.1–2, 3.7; G. Fussman, JAOS 116 (1996) 247.

2. For the ceramic evidence see, for example, Gardin in Aï Khanoum 1:121–88; J.-C. Gardin and B. Lyonnet, BEFEO 63 (1976) 45–51; Veuve in Aï Khanoum 6:95–101. For the ceramic evidence from Aï Khanoum providing evidence for contact between Bactria and the Mediterranean world throughout the Hellenistic period see above, p. 9. For the inscriptions and coins see below.

3. For the fortifications see Bernard in DAI 1829–1979 110–11; P. Leriche, RA (1974) 231–70; id. in Aï Khanoum 5; and id. in Mélanges Lévêque 5:207–17. For the absence of a grid plan in the lower town see, for example, Leriche in After Alexander 141.

4. On the significance of the location of the settlement at Aï Khanoum see Bernard in DAI 1829–1979 109–10; Bernard in Géographie 14–15; see also Rapin in Greek Colonists 331; and Kritt, Bactria 33 and n. 160.

For a map and a plan of the site see, for example, Bernard in Scientific American Ancient Cities 70, 71; id., CRAI (2001) 983; id. in Afghanistan 82. For a reconstruction of the site see, Lecuyot in After Alexander 155–62.

5. For the inscription containing the epigram and the Delphic maxims see Bernard, PBA (1967) 71–95, 88–89; L. Robert, CRAI (1968) 421–57 ( = Aï Khanoum 1:207–37); Nouveau Choix no. 37; Rapin in Aï Khanoum 8:389, nos. a-c; Steinepigramme 3:6, no. 12/01/01; I. Estremo Oriente 382–84; Euphrat 103A & B.143–47; and IGIAC 97. Regarding the find location, Bernard (PBA [1967] 88–89) remarked: “Although it is clear the stone had been displaced, since its inscribed face was turned towards the left ante, there is no serious reason to doubt that it originally stood in the heroön itself or in its temenos.” Robert dated the inscription on palaeographic grounds to the beginning of the third century B.C. A. K. Narain and, subsequently, J. D. Lerner questioned Robert and Bernard. Narain pointed out that “while the irresistible temptation to identify Clearchus as a discipline [sic] of Aristotle is understandable, there is no direct evidence to support it” (AION 47 [1987] 277). Narain concluded that the inscription should be dated from the third quarter of the third century B.C. (AION 47 [1987] 287). On the basis of the architectural history of the temenos and the ceramic evidence, J. D . Lerner downdated the inscription. He claimed—not convincingly—that the Klearchos mentioned in the inscription was not the philosopher from Soloi, the pupil of Aristotle, as Robert had suggested (CRAI [1968] 442–48); rather, he may have been a like-named citizen of Aï Khanoum who traveled to Delphi, copied the maxims, and had them set up at the temenos of Kineas when he returned (followed by Mairs in Foundation Myths [forthcoming]). This, according to Lerner, would have happened in the last part of the third/first quarter of the second century B.C. (AMI 35/36 [2003/2004] 383–90, 395, 400). G. Rougemont disagreed with Narain and Lerner and concluded that “les deux écritures employées (respectivement pour l’épigramme et pour les maximes) indiquent nettement la haute époque hellénistique et je serais surpris que ces textes soient très postérieurs au premier quart du IIIe siècle” (IGIAC p. 207).

For Kineas, who is known only from this inscription, see, for example, Rougemont, IGIAC p. 201. Robert (CRAI [1968] 431–38 = Aï Khanoum 1:211–22) suggested he was of Thessalian origin and that he may have been of the generation after Alexander. Other names attested at Aï Khanoum that were characteristic of Thrace, Macedonia, or northern Greece include Triballos (Robert, CRAI [1968] 419), Lysanias (Bernard, CRAI [1972] 618–19), Molossos (Rapin, BCH [1983] 334, no. 8d); see also n. 17 below.

For other examples of a temenos see PYRRHEION in Epirus and literature cited there. For Delphi and its oracle in the life of Aï Khanoum see Mairs in Foundation Myths (forthcoming).

6. The founder. On Kineas as founder see, for example, Leschhorn, Gründer 314–17. Bernard suggested that Alexander founded the settlement at Aï Khanoum and that it was the site of Alexandreia Oxeiana (e.g., PBA [1967] 92; in DAI 1829–1979 110; and in Géographie 3–17. Actually, in this latter article Bernard hesitated between identifying Termez or Aï Khanoum as the possible site of Alexandeia Oxeiana [3–5] but ultimately decided in favor of Aï Khanoum [12–15]; followed by MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 218; and by Merkelbach and Stauber in Euphrat 7). At the same time, however, he did not dismiss the possibility that Seleukos I might have been the founder; he noted, for example, that there was no archaeological proof that the founding of the settlement at Aï Khanoum reached back to Alexander (JS [1982] 135; Aï Khanoum 4:7, 34). In favor of Alexander he observed that the fertility of the soil in the region and the need to control the peasants who cultivated it would have prompted Alexander to settle colonists at the site. He also noted that among the bronze coins discovered at Aï Khanoum were nine (plus two hors fouille) anepigraphic coins of Athenian type (Bernard and Guillaume, RN [1980] 12–17; Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:19, nos. 1–9; see also 159–60). Bernard described them as “pre-Seleucid.” He also observed that the number of examples found at the site and the fact that the series is not attested elsewhere indicate they were minted at Aï Khanoum. He then tentatively raised the possibility that the coins indicated the settlement at Aï Khanoum existed as a Greek city before the arrival of Seleukos I Nikator and was thus a foundation of Alexander, i.e., ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana. The dating, however, is not secure, and Bernard himself did not exclude the possibility that the coins dated to the beginning of the period of Seleucid rule. Kritt (Bactria 41–42), for example, placed these coins “sometime after the beginning of the sole reign of Antiochus I,” i.e., after 281 B.C. For Bernard’s suggestion that the settlement at Aï Khanoum was later renamed Eukratideia see below, n. 29.

Fraser (Cities 155–56 and n. 99) pointed to the lettering of the Klearchos inscription and the reference to Klearchos himself as indications of a foundation date at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.C. This, he claimed, made it probable that the settlement was a Seleucid foundation. He also noted that “the preponderance of early Seleucid bronzes, especially those of Antiochos I, among the coins found on the site, supports but does not prove the Seleucid origin of the city” (citing Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:5). He argued against the possibility that the settlement was named after Alexander for the following reasons: (a) the temenos of Kineas (i.e., as founder) argues against this, (b) it is not mentioned in any of the surviving Alexander historians (an argument from silence, as Fraser himself noted), and (c) it was highly unlikely that the Seleucids would have named a settlement “Alexandreia,” Downey (Architecture 63) also observed that the fact that none of the buildings thus far excavated can be dated to before the early third century B.C. supported dating the foundation to the reign of Seleukos I Nikator.

Narain called attention to the Greek monogram and the symbol on a brick that covered the sarcophagus in the tomb of Kineas (for the monogram see below, n. 24). Narain identified the latter as the Brahmi letter Jha (see Bernard in Aï Khanoum 1:9–10, 87–88; Narain, JAOS [1986] 797–801 = Indo-Greeks [Delhi, 2003] 388–91; id., ZPE 69 [1987] 278–80 = Indo-Greeks 417–19; id., AION 47 (1987) 286 = Indo Greeks 442; id. in India 124–25 = Indo-Greeks 401–2. Kritt [Susa 130–31] followed Narain’s identification and also suggested it was “possible” that “a cursive form of the Brahmi character found on the bricks” could be read on certain coins). He also pointed out that the use of Brahmi has not been attested before the mid-third century B.C. Therefore, he dated the Brahmi stamp on the brick to c. 185 B.C. or, at the earliest, to c. 250 B.C. and remarked (ZPE 69 [1987] 279–80): “If this conclusion is justified the very chronology of the city at Aï Khanoum as given by Bernard will have to be reconsidered. For according to him the monument under discussion comes from the earliest phase of the city which he dates in the last quarter of the fourth century B.C. (see Aï Khanoum 1:105) and which he believes to be Alexandria Oxiana.” Finally, Narain concluded that “the available evidence” pointed to the founding of the settlement at Aï Khanoum by Diodotos (I or II?, i.e., mid-third century B.C.) and the renaming—“if at all”—by Euthydemos (in India 128). Nota bene, however, that Narain’s argument is essentially ex silentio. Posch (Baktrien 15–23) essentially offered a compromise position between the early and later dating: he suggested there was an early foundation established in 328 B.C., and that approximately two generations later the settlement associated with Kineas as ktistes was founded.

Narain’s identification of the symbol on the brick as the Brahmi letter Jha, and the historical implications, have not been universally accepted. Bernard objected strongly that “pour de multiples raisons, il est peu vraisemblable que, malgré les apparences, le signe qui, dans la marque officielle estampée sur les briques cuites enveloppant le sarcophage de Kinéas, s’ajoute au monogramme grec composé des lettres delta et oméga, représente la lettre brahmi jha . . . le rapport établi par lui [i.e., Narain] avec la brahmi est . . . incompatible, pour la Bactriane, avec la vraisemblance historique et les données archéologiques (le monnayage prouve que la ville d’Aï Khanoum existe dès le règne d’Antiochos I^er, au moins), et qu’il faut tenir compte aussi de possibles influences linguistiques et paléographiques laissées par l’araméen, qui fut pendant deux siècles la langue des bureaux de la chancellerie achéménide en Asie Centrale. On n’exclura pas non plus que le signe qui fait l’objet de la présente discussion soit une simple marque d’identification sans signification alphabétique proprement dite, hypothèse qui laisse place à la possibilité d’un graveur s’inspirant librement d’une lettre araméenne, daleth ou tsadé” (in IGIAC 208–9). For a fuller statement of Bernard’s objections to the interpretation of the symbol as a Brahmi letter see his discussion in Aï Khanoum 9 (forthcoming). L. Martinez-Sève observed (in IGIAC 204–5 n. 721): “Une brique cuite portant la même lettre que celle invoquée par A. K. Narain a été retrouvée prise dans un sol ancien du sanctuaire aux niches indentées, que l’on peut dater du règne d’Antiochos I^er. Cela exclut donc sa datation.” See also Falk, Schrift im alten Indien 333–34.

7. For the dedication to Hermes and Herakles see L. Robert, CRAI (1968) 417–21; MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 199; Rapin in Aï Khanoum 8:389, no. 2; I. Estremo Oriente 381 = Euphrat 102 = IGIAC 98. There has been some disagreement regarding the dating of the inscription. Robert dated it (primarily) on palaeographic grounds to the mid-third century B.C. On the other hand Bernard, pointing to the archaeological context, suggested dating the text to the first half of the second century B.C. (in Aï Khanoum 6:111–12; see also M. Sève, BE [1989] 140; and SEG 38:1505); see also J. D . Lerner, AMI 35/36 (2003/2004) 390–91; and above, n. 5.

8. For the treasury and personal names attested at Aï Khanoum see n. 17. For the funerary inscriptions see I. Estremo Oriente 360–62, 385–86; IGIAC 133–37.

9. For the agorano[mos] see D. Schlumberger and P. Bernard, BCH 89 (1965) 635–39; Bernard, PBA (1967) 91 and n. 2; Gardin in Aï Khanoum 1:162; Rapin in Aï Khanoum 8:388, no. 7; I. Estremo Oriente 322. For another fragment of a stamped handle, with three letters preserved, see Rapin in Aï Khanoum 8:114, 304 (no. 32), 327 (no. 44), and pl. 57. In a personal communication Paul Bernard informs me that contrary to what he had first thought in 1965, the handle with agorano[mos] (palace propylaeum) and the other one (palace treasury) belong to imported amphoras; for other fragments of this type of amphora with pointed base, whose Mediterranean origin has since been recognized, see Rapin in Aï Khanoum 8:155 and n. 472, 327 (nos. 41–45), and pl. 70; Schlumberger and Bernard, BCH (1965) 625 (no. 65), 634–35 (nos. 87, 89), figs. 8, 27; Gardin in Aï Khanoum 1:162, fig. 31. A complete example of such an amphora but without a stamp on the handle, which was found at the house near the Kokcha River (Bernard CRAI [1971] 411, fig. 14), is thought to be Rhodian, second quarter of the second century B.C.; on this amphora see further Lyonnet in Aï Khanoum 9 (forthcoming).

10. For the construction techniques as well as the architectural techniques and decorations see especially Bernard, PBA (1967) 77–86; id., JA 264 (1976) 245–75.

11. For the gymnasium see Bernard, CRAI (1978) 421–29; id. in Afghanistan 89–90; S. Veuve and J.-C. Liger, BEFEO 63 (1976) 40–45; Veuve and Liger, BEFEO 68 (1980) 5–6; Veuve in Aï Khanoum 6; Posch, Baktrien 24–28. For the theater see Bernard, CRAI (1976) 314–22; id., CRAI (1978) 429–41; id. in Afghanistan 90; Posch, Baktrien 31–34. For the heroön see Bernard et al. in Aï Khanoum 1:85–102, 115; Posch, Baktrien 43–44.

12. For the palace complex see Bernard, JA 264 (1976) 252–57; and below, n. 15. The temple à redans (Francort referred to it as the temple “à niches indentées”) was located on the main north-south road of the settlement (see Bernard et al., CRAI [1969] 327–55, [1970] 317–37, [1971] 414–31, [1974] 295–98; Bernard, JA 264 [1976] 266–72; and Bernard in Akten XIII Kong. 51–53; Francfort in Aï Khanoum 3.2: Le sanctuaire du temple a niches indentées; Downey, Architecture 65–73; Colledge in Hellenism 142; Posch, Baktrien 39–42; Hannestad and Potts in Religion 93–101; Martinez-Sève in Paysage 195–207 and bibliography on 195 nn. 1–4). Fragments of the sandaled left foot and left hand of a marble statue, two to three times life size, have been found. Bernard has suggested (CRAI [1969] 338–41) this might have been a statue of Zeus enthroned similar to that found on Graeco-Bactrian coinage, with a scepter in his left hand and a Nike or an eagle in his right (this coin type was particularly popular throughout the Hellenistic world; see, for example, Bellinger, Essay 3; Price, Alexander and Philip 30–31; R. A. Grossmann, Yale University Art Gallery, Sculpture Hall: Greek Coins [New Haven, Conn., n.d.] no. 9; Arnold-Biucchi, Alexander’s Coins 33, 51–57; and Le Rider, Alexander the Great 6–8). Rapin speculated (in Greek Colonists 341) that the statue fragment “certainly represented a syncretistic Graeco-Oriental deity, whether male or female, in a style which is evidently Greek.” Bernard has also suggested (CRAI [1974] 298; see also CRAI [1970] 327–30) that the deity worshipped in the temple might have been—as in Commagene—Zeus-Ahura Mazda, under the form Zeus-Oromasdes. F. Grenet has commented: “Il convient à mon avis, d’envisager dans cette perspective l’assimilation locale de Mithra à Zeus” (in Histoire et cultes 150). For the (small) finds from the temple see Francfort in Aï Khanoum 3.2.

The second temple (referred to as the extramural temple or the temple hors les murs) was located outside the north gate. Although no cult objects or inscriptions have thus far been found there, it has been identified as a temple on the basis of some similarities to the temple à redans (Bernard, CRAI [1974] 287–89; id., CRAI [1976] 303–6; id. in Akten XIII Kong. 53–54; Downey, Architecture 73–75). For the stepped podium/sacred platform see Bernard, CRAI (1976) 306–7; id., JA 264 (1976) 272–73; id. in Akten XIII Kong. 54; Downey, Architecture 75; Hannestad and Potts in Religion 95.

13. For the private houses and objects found therein as well as the Greek influence on many of the artifacts see, for example, P. Bernard, BCH 89 (1965) 604–40; id., JA 264 (1976) 257–66; id. in Afghanistan 91–92; Gardin in Aï Khanoum 1:121–88; id. in De l’Indus aux Balkans 447–60; Gouin in Aï Khanoum 1:195–201; Francfort in Aï Khanoum 3.2:7–104; Guillaume and Rougeulle in Aï Khanoum 7:3–74; S. Veuve, BCH 106 (1982) 23–51; and Rapin in Greek Colonists 340.

14. Fragments of an Ionic capital: Bernard, BEFEO 63 (1976) 36–37; id., StIr 23 (1994) 83 n. 3; B. A. Litvinsky and I. R. Pichikian, IrAnt 33 (1998) 249; see also Francfort in Aï Khanoum 3.2:31. The herm: Bernard, CRAI (1967) 319–21. The funerary stele: Bernard, CRAI (1972) 623–25; id. in Afghanistan 127, no. 32. Woman leaning on a pillar: Bernard, CRAI (1972) 627–29. Standing male: Bernard, CRAI (1969) 341–44; see also Rapin in Greek Colonists 340. The fountains: Bernard, CRAI (1976) 307–13; id., CRAI (1978) 429; P. Leriche and J. Thoraval, Syria 56 (1979) 171–205; Leriche in Aï Khanoum 5:32–33; and below, n. 20.

15. For the palace complex see, for example, Bernard, CRAI (1968) 264–71; id., CRAI (1970) 301–10; id., CRAI (1971) 385–406; id., CRAI (1974) 289–93; id. in Afghanistan 88–89; Bernard and Rapin, BEFEO 68 (1980) 10–38; Bernard in DAI 1829–1979 114–15; id. in Scientific American Ancient Cities 70–72; Bernard and Le Berre in Aï Khanoum 1:17–83; Rapin in Greek Colonies 333–36; Colledge in Hellenism 142–44; Downey, Architecture 64; Nielsen, Hellenistic Palaces 124–29; MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology in Afghanistan 221–24.

For a photograph and plan of the palace see, for example, Bernard in Scientific American Ancient Cities 67, 72.

16. Bernard in Scientific American Ancient Cities 70. Earlier, Bernard (CRAI [1974] 292–93; see also MacDowall and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 224) had suggested three possible explanations for the nature and use of the palace complex: (a) a royal residence, a basileion (Rapin in Greek Colonists 335; MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 221; on the basileion see SELEUKEIA in Pieria; and Pitschikjan in Basileia 226–33); (b) the residence of the governor, who was assisted by a military or administrative official; (c) the seat of government of the polis (assuming the settlement was a polis) at Aï Khanoum.

For the objects found in the treasury of the palace: lapis lazuli, garnet, turquoise, crystal (Rapin in Aï Khanoum 8:172–77), asbestos (Aï Khanoum 8:151), as well as jewelry (Aï Khanoum 8:167–81), stone plates (Aï Khanoum 8:157), and ivory (Aï Khanoum 8:165, 181, 235). For notations on vases regarding incense, olive oil, and coins see below, n. 17.

17. For the treasury of the palace see, for example, Bernard, CRAI (1978) 447–60; Bernard and Rapin, BEFEO 68 (1980) 10–38; Rapin, RA (1987) 41–70; id. in Aï Khanoum 8; id. in Greek Colonists 334–35. For the inscriptions on the vases found in the treasury see Rapin, BCH 107 (1983) 315–72; id., RA (1987) 54–56; id. in Aï Khanoum 8:95–103; SEG 33:1220–46, 38:1516; I. Estremo Oriente 323–57; IGIAC 101–30; Bernard in Greek Archaeology 80. See also Aï Khanoum 8:388 and IGIAC 138–50 for other graffiti and inscriptions on vases and sherds found elsewhere at the site. In addition to the Greek inscriptions and graffiti, an Aramaic ostracon relating to the payment made to various people bearing Iranian names has also been discovered (Bernard, CRAI [1972] 631–32; Rapin BCH [1983] 347, no. 28), an indication of a local economic administration. For the names see Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:7 n. 9; and id. in Greek Archaeology 80–81; the index in Rapin, BCH (1983) 372 and in IGIAC; for other Greek names see also Robert, CRAI (1968) 418, 422; id., CRAI (1972) 618. For the Iranian names see F. Grenet, BCH (1983) 373–81.

18. Rapin associated the rebuilding of the palace with the apogee of Eukratides (in Greek Colonists 335–56, citing Justin 41.6). He noted that his coinage is particularly abundant (see, for example, Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:101; A. S. Hollis, ZPE 110 [1996] 161–64). Furthermore, he remarked that several archaeological finds, especially from the treasury, suggest that Aï Khanoum was Eukratides’ capital. Holt (OCD³ s.v. “Eucratides”) also described him as a Graeco-Bactrian king. Note, however, that there is some disagreement among scholars about the exact nature of Eukratides’ position. Narain (CAH² 8:401; ZPE 69 [1987] 281), for example, claimed—less convincingly—that we do not know “whether Eucratides was a satrap of the northern provinces of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom or was a soldier of fortune.”

19. For the inscription on the vase referring to “year 24” (Bernard, CRAI [1980] 442 = Aï Khanoum 8:96, no. 19 = SEG 33:1220 = I. Estremo Oriente 329 = IGIAC 117) see, for example, Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:99–102 (“L’année régnale ou l’ère à laquelle se rapporte la date de 24 ne peut donc être que celle d’Eucratide I. . . . La date communément admise pour le début du règne d’Eucratide est 170 environ. . . . La date de 24 sur le tesson inscrit de la trésorerie d’Aï Khanoum nous donne donc 147 av. J.-C.”); Bernard and Rapin, BEFEO 68 (1980) 23–27; Rapin, BCH 107 (1983) 320, 360, 367–71; id. in Aï Khanoum 8:114, 285–94; id., RA (1987) 56; G. Fussman, BEFEO 67 (1988) 36–37; B. Lyonnet, BAI 12 (1998) 143; J. D . Lerner, Anabasis 1 (2010) 70–71. Rapin speculated (in Greek Colonists 336) that “the absence of any inscriptions later than c. 145 B.C. and evidence of destruction by fire in several public buildings are very probably indicative of the end of Eucratides’ rule and the capture of Aï Khanum by nomadic invaders.” On the other hand, Narain (ZPE 69 [1987] 280–82) noted that there is nothing in the inscription indicating the reign of Eukratides and tentatively suggested that the “year 24”—if it was part of a reckoning system—referred to the era started by Menander in c. 155 B.C. This would date the inscription to c. 131 B.C. See also Bopearachchi, Ancient Indian Coins 179; and id. in Coins 104: “It is evident that this inscription does not refer to an era but to a year of an unknown reign”; followed by J. D . Lerner, Anabasis 1 (2010) 70–71.

Note, however, that the question of the eras in use in Hellenistic Bactria is a complex one; see, for example, Bernard’s and Rapin’s discussions (cited above) as well as Salomon in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 359–83; J. Jakobsson, CQ 59 (2009) 505–10.

20. For the remains of the literary texts found at Aï Khanoum see C. Rapin, BCH 111 (1987) 225–66 (philosophical dialogue, 232–49; lines in iambic trimeters, 249–59); Bernard in Greek Archaeology 81; I. Estremo Oriente 458–59; and IGIAC 131–32 (and bibliography). For the possibility that there may have been a library at Aï Khanoum and the tentative identification of the site within the palace complex as the library see Rapin, RA (1987) 50; id., BCH 111 (1987) 225–31, 259–66; cf. the library at ALEXANDREIA near Egypt. For the fountain gargoyle (along with other spigots) see Bernard, CRAI (1976) 310–13; id. in Afghanistan 128, no. 33; P. Leriche and J. Thoraval, Syria 56 (1979) 196–98; Leriche in Aï Khanoum 5:32–33.

21. For the religious life at Aï Khanoum see, for example, MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 227; Rapin in Greek Colonists 340–41. For the fragmentary statue (possibly) of Zeus see above, n. 12; for the statuette of Herakles see Bernard, CRAI (1974) 301–2.

22. For coins from Aï Khanoum with gods of the Greek pantheon on them see, for example, Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4, Index I; Kritt, Bactria 25–26, 35–37; Holt, Thundering Zeus 96 (probably Aï Khanoum), 121.

23. On the Oriental character of the religious architecture at Aï Khanoum see Bernard, JA 264 (1976) 266–273; id. in Akten XIII Kong. 51–59. For the Persians worshipping in the open air see Bernard, CRAI (1976) 306–7. For the female deity, carved in bone, see, for example, Bernard, CRAI (1974) 302–5; id. in Afghanistan 115, no. 16; MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 227; Afghanistan no. 16. For Cybele on the silver plaque see Bernard, CRAI (1970) 339–47; id. in Afghanistan 118–19, no. 23; Francfort in Aï Khanoum 3.2:93–104. Bernard (CRAI [1970] 345–46) and Francfort pointed out (in Aï Khanoum 3.2:102–3) the similarity of the representation of Cybele to the Dea Syria, i.e., Atargatis (on which see HIERAPOLIS Bambyke, n. 3), and noted that the plaque bore witness to ties between Syria and central Asia in the first half of the third century B.C. Other figurines in terra-cotta were also found. However, it is not clear whether they were simply decorative objects or representations of deities; see further Rougeulle and Samoun in Aï Khanoum 7:60–62. For Indian religious symbols on Indo-Greek coins and on a coral pendant see Rapin in Greek Colonists 341; R. Audoin and P. Bernard, RN (1974) 6–41.

24. For the suggestion that there was a mint at Aï Khanoum see, for example, Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:35; Kritt, Bactria 31–33 (who considers it to have been more important than Baktra’s); Holt, Thundering Zeus 43, 117 n. 27, 124–25; Capdetrey, Pouvoir 79. On the coinage see, for example, P. Bernard and O. Guillaume, RN (1980) 9–32; Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4; G. Le Rider, RN (1987) 236–44; Kritt, Bactria 22–44.

For the planchets see Aï Khanoum 4:13–14, 83–84, nos. 225–34. Of the coins found at Aï Khanoum, Bernard (Aï Khanoum 4:14) has suggested that most, if not all, of series IV.3 (Antiochos I, thirty-six examples), VI.1 and 2 (Diodotos I and II, twenty-one examples), and VII (Euthydemos I, forty-nine examples), among other coins, were undoubtedly minted there.

Bernard noted that of the eleven pre-Seleucid (?) and Seleucid series, only one (IV.1) originated in the Near East, in SELEUKEIA on the Tigris. All the others originated in central Asia, primarily Bactria (Aï Khanoum 4:12–13). As for Aï Khanoum, he remarked that in contrast to DOURA EUROPOS, which relied on the mint at ANTIOCH for most of its coinage, the Bactrian settlement apparently provided for its own monetary needs. As Bernard commented in Aï Khanoum 4:13, “La satrapie bactrienne affirmait ainsi son autonomie économique et monétaire, prélude à l’indépendance politique qu’elle n’allait pas tarder à revendiquer.”

On some coins of Seleukos I and Antiochos I (ESM nos. 665–75) that Newell ascribed to Baktra one finds the monogram , , or . The attribution of these coins has been the object of discussion (and disagreement) among a number of scholars.

On some of the coregency coins of Seleukos I and Antiochos I discovered at Aï Khanoum one apparently finds the monogram (so Bernard and Guillaume, RN [1980] 17, no. A [ = Aï Khanoum 4:36], 11–13. Note, however, that in Aï Khanoum 4:36, Bernard wrote “monogrammes illisibles” for the three examples found in the course of the excavation). On the other hand, the monogram is—probably—partially preserved in an example in the British Museum collection (RN [1980] 17, no. B = Aï Khanoum 4:36, TF37 [“hors fouilles”]). In a personal communication Bernard has written that Kritt “a probablement raison de penser que ces exemplaires étaient en fait dépourvus de tout monogramme (Kritt, Bactria 41–42),” but that he had recognized “le monogramme sur un 4è exemplaire TF 37 d’Aï Khanoum, trouvé fortuitement en dehors du site (RN [1980] 17, no. A, pl. II = Aï Khanoum 4:36, TF37), ainsi que sur un exemplaire dans le British Museum (RN [1980] 17, n° B, pl. II). La même série comportait donc à la fois des exemplaires avec et sans monogramme ; il en allait de même de la légende au nom des deux rois Séleucos et Antiochos qui fait défaut à certains exemplaires: Kritt n’a peut-être pas tort de considérer qu’il faut distinguer deux séries anépigraphes trés proches mais distinctes dans le temps (Kritt, Bactria 41–42).” Furthermore, on a number of bricks uncovered at Aï Khanoum one finds the monogram (see, for example, D. Schlumberger and P. Bernard, BCH 89 [1965] 654–55; Bernard in Aï Khanoum 1.1:9 and nn. 6, 88; for [abbreviations of] city names stamped on roof tiles see, for example, LYSIMACHEIA in Aetolia and ILION ). As Schlumberger and Bernard noted (BCH 89 [1965] 654), the monogram consisted of a circle within which was a delta; on the bottom line of this there was an oval loop, which was probably an omega. If the oval loop in the delta is only lacking the bottom of the circle, the monogram would be analogous to, if not identical with, the monogram found on a series of silver coins produced around 285–280 B.C. at a Bactrian mint by Antiochos in the name of his father, Seleukos I, and in his own name as vice regent of the eastern provinces. The only difference would be the shape of the loop attached to the lower line of the deltas: semicircular on the coins, semioval on the bricks. The monogram could be resolved to read Δω.

Bernard and Guillaume (RN [1980] 18–19) pointed out that on both the coin discovered hors fouilles and in the British Museum collection (no. a) one apparently finds the same monogram found on the Seleucid coins that Newell had attributed to Baktra (ESM 674–75). The connection between these coins was confirmed by the appearance of the Π to the right of the monogram on both the British Museum example and ESM 674. The monogram was also found on coins ascribed to Baktra with the variant forms and . The second of these variants, of course, has also been found as a mark on bricks excavated at Aï Khanoum. Bernard and Guillaume considered the possibility that the coin that Newell had attributed to Baktra should in fact be reassigned to Aï Khanoum. They rejected this possibility, however, because it would have deprived Baktra of all its coinage. In a personal communication Paul Bernard adds the following: “La position tout à fait excentrée d’Aï Khanoum la rend, selon moi, inapte à devenir la capitale centralisatrice de la province, au moins dans les débuts d’ un nouvel état qui a besoin de fortifier sa mainmise sur le territoire conquis. . . . Le monnayage d’Aï Khanoum (et bien sûr, il ya en eu un) n’a été trouvé que lorsqu’on y a fait des fouilles. Il y a eu des fouilles à Bactres dernièrement (dernier compte rendu par R. Besenval et Ph. Marquis, CRAI 2010), mais elles n’ont pas atteint véritablement les couches d’occupation grecques: les restes d’architecture grecque ont été trouvés comme remplois dans des contructions postgrecques. Le jour où on fouillera l’établissement grec on trouvera autant de types monétaires nouveaux qu’on en a trouvé à Aï Khanoum.”

Bernard and Guillaume also claimed that the small number—four—of bronzes found at Aï Khanoum rendered it impossible to say that this particular coin was minted locally. Therefore, they presented two possible solutions: (a) attribute all these coins to Baktra, or (b) assign these coins to Aï Khanoum by shifting to it from Baktra all the bronze and silver coins of the first two Seleucid kings. They opted for the first solution. However, we should note that the existence of a Seleucid mint at Baktra is a hypothesis, albeit a strong one. Newell (ESM 228–49) argued that, among other things, under the Seleucids Bactria (a) was populous and wealthy, (b) was economically important as the terminus of the highway from Babylonia and the West, via Ekbatana, to the East, and (c) had close commercial relations with central Asia and India. (d) As a result, it needed coined money but was too far removed from Babylonia and western Iran to be supplied by mints there, and thus a royal Seleucid mint at the capital Baktra would be highly probable. Furthermore, Newell pointed out that (e) the city was the nearest large urban center to the find spot of the Oxus treasure, and (f) the Seleucid coins he proposed assigning to Baktra lead directly into the following issues of the Bactrian kings Diodotos and Euthydemos, with (g) the “only logical location for a large and active royal mint . . . at Bactra, the political, commercial and geographical centre of the entire province” (229). Newell also noted that the earliest Seleucid coins could be assigned to Bactra because (h) they were the only known specimens that reached the British Museum from India, (i) they differed in style from any of the other ordinary specimens of this type, (j) they were struck from inverted dies, and (k) they are unique in that they have a monogram on the obverse directly behind the head of Zeus. Finally, Newell dismissed the possibility that the coins had been minted in India because northwest India was not under Seleucid hegemony during the reign of Seleukos, but “Bactria was, and hence the capital city, Bactra, appears to be the only mint possible” (230). It is useful to bear in mind that, compelling as Newell’s reasons are for the existence of a Seleucid mint at Baktra, no confirmatory evidence for it has yet been discovered. As for alleged proximity to the Oxus treasure, Kritt remarked that Aï Khanoum (which, of course, Newell did not know about) “is actually a bit closer to the find spot of the Oxus Treasure than Bactra and far more accessible” (Kritt, Bactria 23; for the coins in the Oxus treasure see A. R . Bellinger, ANS MN 10 [1962] 51–57). The problem with this claim, however, is that the find spot of the Oxus treasure is not definitely known. Two locations have been suggested: Takht-i Sangin (see, for example, Holt, Thundering Zeus 17; Capdetrey, Pouvoir 78 n. 162; and earlier literature) and Takht-i Kobad (Bernard, StIr 23 [1994] 101–6). With regard to Takht-i Kobad, Bernard observed in a personal communication that “à vol d’oiseau Bactres est à 100 km de Takht-I Kobad, Takht-I Kobad est à 125 km d’Aï Khanoum. Il est faux de dire qu’il était ‘beaucoup plus facile d’aller’ d’Aï Khanoum à Takht-I Kobad que de Bactres à Takht-I Kobad.”

B. Kritt (Bactria 23) disagreed with Newell and Bernard. Kritt noted the weakness of Bernard and Guillaume’s objection to the small number of coins with the monogram found at Aï Khanoum, and suggested (Bactria 11, 22–34) removing from Baktra to Aï Khanoum the coins that Newell had assigned to the former (ESM 657–726, designated “Mint B” by Kritt). Kritt was initially followed by Houghton and Lorber (Seleucid Coins 1.1:103; see also Bopearachchi in Travaux Le Rider 82). They summarized Kritt’s arguments as follows: “Kritt cited the area of diffusion of the bronzes found at Aï Khanoum, which localizes them narrowly; edge technique and fabric that associate the unmarked Aï Khanoum bronzes with others bearing the monogram; and mud bricks with the monogram , excavated at Aï Khanoum . . . and unstruck flans proving the existence of a local mint. . . . Cumulatively, Kritt argued, these factors tend to support the reattribution of Newell’s Bactra series to the mint at Aï Khanoum.” They also noted the discovery of a new bronze coin (Seleucid Coins 1.1:103 and no. 283A) that depicted the river Oxus; this, they commented, would have been inappropriate for Baktra because it does not lie on the Oxus or any river.

O. Bopearachchi (in Travaux Le Rider 79–91; in Roi et Économie 355–61) and G. Le Rider (SNR 83 [2004] 196–97) rejected Kritt’s reattribution. Among other things, Bopearachchi noted that whereas archaeological excavation at Aï Khanoum had reached Hellenistic levels everywhere the archaeologists had dug, at Baktra excavation had not reached these levels. As for the newly discovered coin (Seleucid Coins 1.1, no. 283A), Bopearachchi pointed out—among other things—that the simple fact of a river running through the territory (italics mine) of a city could provide sufficient justification for that city to mint coins with a river god on them. And that condition could have applied to Baktra. He also observed that there was no proof that the coin had actually been found at Aï Khanoum (Houghton and Lorber had noted only: “Notable provenance: Pakistan”). In Seleucid Coins 2.1:643 Houghton and Lorber accepted Bopearachchi’s criticism regarding 283A and concluded: “Given the current state of the evidence it seems prudent to treat both attributions with caution until the coin finds from the ongoing excavations at Bactra can be fully analyzed against the published finds from Aï Khanoum and the distribution pattern of the disputed coin types at other excavated sites.” See also O. D . Hoover, CSE 2:17 re nos. 121–35, 865–66 (“It is necessary to leave the possibility open that some or all of the coins formerly attributed to Aï Khanoum may actually be issues of Bactra”). For Kritt’s response to Bopearachchi’s discussion see Transitions, esp. 167–84.

As for Baktra, Kritt (Bactria 1–21, 23, 32) suggested the possibility of reassigning to it a series of coins (designated “Mint A” by Kritt, Bactria 4–10, nos. 1–47) of Seleukos I Nikator (ESM 331–35, 337–40, 749–50; also CSE 1033, 1035, 1300–1301; McClean Coll. 9243) that Newell had ascribed to Susa (ESM pp. 124–25). Note, however, that the origin of these coins has been a matter of continuing discussion: Le Rider (Suse 31–32) doubted the attribution of ESM 331–35, 337–39, to Susa (on the difficulty of determining whether various bronzes of Seleukos I should be assigned to Susa or SELEUKEIA on the Tigris see Le Rider, Suse 25–27). Mørkholm (cited in CSE p. 103) suggested assigning them to EKBATANA.

25. For silver coinage found at Aï Khanoum see Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:5. In addition, three hoards (“1970,” “1973,” and “1973/1974”) of silver coins have also been found at Aï Khanoum. For the “1970” hoard (677 Indian and 6 Indo-Greek silver coins) see R. Audoin and P. Bernard, RN (1973) 238–89; Audoin and Bernard, RN (1974) 7–41; and below, n. 26; for the “1973” hoard (63 tetradrachms) see C. Petitot-Biehler, RN (1975) 23–57; Bernard, CRAI (1974) 305–8; id., RN (1975) 58–69. The third hoard (“1973/1974”), including “some 141 silver coins” according to Holt, found at or near the excavation site in the winter of 1973–1974 was, unfortunately, clandestinely sold; see H.-P. Francfort, RN (1975) 19–22; Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:1; F. Holt, RN (1981) 7–44.

26. For the remains of ancient irrigation canals in the plain of Aï Khanoum see Gentelle, Étude géographique 59–101; id. in Prospections 1:91–105; Gardin in Prospections 3:113–14. On irrigation networks in Bactria see also Aperghis, Economy 68. Strabo mentions the cultivation of rice in Bactriana and other regions and the need to irrigate the crop (15.3.18).

27. The precise circumstances of the end of the settlement at Aï Khanoum are unclear (in general see Narain, Indo-Greeks 128–64; id. in CAH² 412–15; Bernard, PBA [1967] 93; id. in Aï Khanoum 1:109–11; id., RN [1975] 62–69; Posch, Baktrien 88–96; and Lyonnet in Histoire et cultes 155–56). On the one hand, there is evidence for a major fire in the last phase of the settlement at the palace complex (Bernard, PBA [1967] 75, 93; id. in Aï Khanoum 1:110). Furthermore, the gymnasium, as well as the area between the propylaia of the palace and the heroön of Kineas, was occupied by squatters (Bernard, CRAI [1968] 278–79; see also Guillaume in Aï Khanoum 2:25–27; Veuve in Aï Khanoum 6: 109–10). The presence of these squatters and the transformation of the public buildings into homes for them presumably would have come about as a result of the fire. On the other hand, in 1968 excavators found evidence that at the temple à redans the fire followed, rather than preceded, a late occupation phase when the building was used as a warehouse (Bernard, CRAI [1969] 352–55; id. in Aï Khanoum 1:110). This raised the possibility that the phase when the squatters were taking over the public buildings preceded the conflagration and that the fire simply marked the end point of this decline. In 1969 Bernard was unable to chose between these two hypothetical reconstructions (Aï Khanoum 1:110–11). He did, however, call attention to the report of the Chinese diplomat Chang K’ien, who visited and briefly described Bactria in 129 B.C. At that time, according to Chang K’ien, “Ta-hia (Bactria) is more than 2,000 li to the southwest of Ta-Yüan (Ferghana) on the south Bank of the K’ui-shui (Oxus). The people there have fixed abodes and live in walled cities and regular houses like the people of Ta-Yüan. They have no great king or chief, but everywhere the cities and towns have their own petty chiefs. While the people are shrewd traders, their soldiers are weak and afraid to fight, so that when the Ta-Yüechi migrated westward, they made war on the Ta-hia, who became subject to them. The population of Ta-hia may amount to more than a million. Their capital is called Lanshi, and it has markets for the sale of all sorts of merchandise (sections 46–51) . . . but when they were beaten by the Hiung-nu, they (the Ta-Yüe chi) . . . attacked Ta-hia (Bactria) and conquered it. Subsequently they had their capital north of the K’ui-shui (Oxus) and made it the court of their king” (section 29; trans. F. Hirth, JAOS 37 [1917] 89–152; see also Tarn, GBI² 270–311, 513–14; and Narain’s analysis of the sources in Indo-Greeks 128–40; on the Yüe-chi—the Tocharoi—see Schwarz, KP s.v. “Tocharoi” and literature cited there; Xinru Liu, Journal of World History 12 [2001] 266–67).

Bernard (RN [1975] 58–69) reexamined the problem in the light of the discovery of the “1973” hoard (see above, n. 25). Bernard called attention to the following. (a) The coinage discovered in the course of excavating the site essentially ends with Eukratides; to date, no coinage of Eukratides’ son, Heliokles I, has been discovered. In contrast, extensive coinage of both Eukratides (144 coins out of 627) and Heliokles (221 coins, a third of the hoard) was found in the Qunduz hoard (Curiel and Fussman, Qunduz, 13–47, nos. 101–247, 390–610. Qunduz is southwest of Aï Khanoum; the hoard was found, not at Qunduz, but 90 km northwest of it at Khisht Tepe on the Oxus; see Fussman in Qunduz 9; Le Berre in Qunduz 83–88; and Ball, Monuments of Afghanistan 260). (b) The coins found in the course of excavating Aï Khanoum were mainly bronzes. In contrast, the two hoards (subsequently, a third hoard—“1973/1974”—was found; see above, n. 25) thus far discovered at Aï Khanoum consisted of silver coins. It is therefore all the more noteworthy that both the bronze and the silver coinage at Aï Khanoum apparently ended with Eukratides. The cause, Bernard argued convincingly, was the fire that destroyed the palace complex. In the period after the fire at the palace there is no extant evidence for Hellenic life at the settlement: the Greek colonists left, to be replaced by nomadic invaders, in particular the Yüe-chi. Thus Bernard, following Narain, speculated that the disintegration of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom took place in essentially two stages: in the first stage the nomadic Yüe-chi came into control of the territory north of the Oxus, i.e., Sogdiana. This had already taken place when the Chinese ambassador Chang K’ien traveled through the region in 129–128 B.C. The second stage was marked by the installation of the Yüe-chi in Bactria and the consequent migration of the Greek colonists southward; this would have taken place in the last years of the second century B.C.

28. For the silver ingot see Rapin, BCH 107 (1983) 349, no. 30 and literature cited there.

29. At least three different names have been suggested for the settlement at Aï Khanoum: (a) Alexandreia Oxeiana, (b) Dionysopolis, Diodoteia, or Diodotopolis, and (c) Eukratideia.

a. For Alexandreia Oxeiana see above, n. 6.

b. In support of Dionysopolis, Diodoteia, or Diodotopolis, Narain (CAH² 8:395–97; Numismatic Digest 10 [1986] 4–15 = Indo-Greeks [Delhi, 2003] 373 – 84; in India 123–29) called attention to the monogram(s) on coins that Newell had assigned to Baktra (ESM 664–726: ). He pointed out that they could not be resolved to refer to either Baktra or its other name, Zariaspa. He also claimed they could not refer to the name of Diodotos (thus, see MacDonald [CHI 437], who suggested the monogram could be resolved to read ΔΙΟ[δότου]). Narain turned to the coins with the monogram (ESM 665–73; see above, n. 24) that Newell had assigned to Baktra. He noted that the same monogram is also found on bricks discovered at Aï Khanoum (see above, nn. 6, 24), and reassigned these coins to Aï Khanoum; he also followed the suggestion of Gardner (NC [1879] 12) and Howorth (NC [1888] 295) that the monogram could be resolved to read Dionysopolis, and speculated that this—or, alternatively, Diodoteia or Diodotopolis—was the ancient name of Aï Khanoum; the resolution, however, is not definite. Furthermore, we may object—as Narain himself admitted—that this could be the monogram of an official or moneyer rather than of a city. Cf., for example, Holt (Thundering Zeus 52 and n. 15), who suggested the monograms stood for magistrates, not cities.

c. Finally, Bernard speculated that the settlement at Aï Khanoum was later renamed Eukratideia (in DAI 1829–1979 116; Scientific American Ancient Cities 72; BEFEO 68 [1980] 38; followed by Rapin in Aï Khanoum 8:293; id. in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 146 and n. 17; id. in De l’Indus 115; F. Grenet and C. Rapin, BAI 12 [1998] 82 and n. 24). Bernard called attention to Strabo (11.11.2), who said that Eukratideia in Bactria was named for its ruler (on Eukratideia see also Ptol. 6.11.8). Bernard suggested that Strabo might have been referring to the settlement at Aï Khanoum, which Eukratides would have refounded as his capital. In connection with this he called attention to the 1970 hoard of 683 Indian and Graeco-Bactrian coins (677 punch-marked silver coins of Mauryan date from the mint of Taxila and 6 silver coins of Agathokles) that was found in the palace (R. Audouin and P. Bernard, CRAI [1971] 435–46; Audouin and Bernard, RN [1973] 238–89; Audouin and Bernard, RN [1974] 7–41; see also MacDowall and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 208–9). The coins—most of which were in a traveler’s water flask—had been buried c. 130 B.C. Bernard and Rapin (BEFEO 68 [1980] 36–38) pointed to Eukratides’ campaigns in India and suggested that the presence of the coins in Aï Khanoum could be related to this, presumably as either plunder or tribute.

Finally, nota bene Mairs’s sober assessment: “We cannot identify the name of Aï Khanoum, Greek or local” (in Foundation Myths [forthcoming]).

ALEXANDREIA/ALEXANDROPOLIS IN SAKASTANE

Isidore of Charax (18–19) says: (18) ἐντεῦθεν Σακαστανὴ . . . καὶ πλησίον Ἀλεξάνδρεια πόλις (καὶ πλησίον Ἀλεξανδρόπολις πόλις) . . . (19) ἐντεῦθεν Ἀραχωσία . . . εἶτα Ἀλεξανδρόπολις μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας.¹ This apparently corrupt text is our only extant source for the existence of an Alexandreia or Alexandropolis in Sakastane. We do not know the definite location of this settlement.²

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:674–76; Herrmann, RE s.v. “Sakastane”; Tarn, GBI² 470–71; Tcherikover, HS 103; P. Bernard, St. Iran. 3 (1974) 174–75 and n. 6; Brentjes, BNP s.v. “Sacastene”; Fraser, Cities 29, 137–40; and ALEXANDREIA in Arachosia.

1. Regarding the text of Isidore Tarn commented (GBI² 471 n. 1): “In 18 (Sacastene) he has καὶ πλησίον Ἀλεξάνδρεια πόλις καὶ πλησίον Ἀλεξανδρόπολις πόλις and in 19 (Arachosia) he has Ἀλεξανδρόπολις, μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας. It has long been recognised that one of the two names in 18 must go out; and Arrian III,28,4 makes it certain that the name in 19 (Isidore is reproducing an official survey) should be Ἀλεξάνδρεια. Ἀλεξάνδρεια therefore has been transferred from 19 to 18 and must go out of 18 and back to its place in 19, which has been filled by Ἀλεξανδρόπολις taken from 18. The real reading then of 18 is καὶ πλησίον Ἀλεξανδρόπολις πόλις and of 19 Ἀλεξάνδρεια μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας.” Tarn also claimed (471) that Alexandropolis (a) was near, not in, Sakastane, (b) was located at Kandahar, (c) was not founded by Alexander (because a city with that name could not have been founded by the Macedonian king) but “at best was a military colony which (possibly quite correctly) attributed its settlement to him.” Cf. Bernard, who claimed that Alexandropolis was undoubtedly a doublet for Alexandreia, and observed: “Il n’y a aucune raison pour faire subir au texte tous les remaniements que propose Tarn” (St. Iran. 3 [1974] 174 n. 6).

Fraser (Cities 138) agreed with (a) Tarn’s deletion of the redundant phrase (καὶ πλησίον Ἀλεξανδρόπολις πόλις) in Isidore 18. He also agreed with (b) the transfer of the two names (i.e., that the real reading of 18 is καὶ πλησίον Ἀλεξανδρόπολις πόλις and of 19 is Ἀλεξάνδρεια, μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας) and with (c) the claim that the termination “-polis” indicated the settlement was not founded by Alexander but was attributed to him at a later date.

2. Location. Droysen claimed (Hist. 2:676) that Alexandreia/ Alexandropolis in Sakastane was at Kandahar; he was followed by Scerrato in Asoka 20. Tarn (see above, n. 1) also placed it at Kandahar. Although Fraser first accepted the identification of Alexandreia/Alexandropolis in Sakastane with Kandahar (Afghan Studies 2 [1979] 13 and 17 n. 26), he subsequently repudiated this claim (Cities 138–39 n. 66). His reason for rejecting the identification was based on the results of excavation at Kandahar that demonstrated that Old Kandahar was both an Achaemenid and an early Hellenistic center (see, for example, Gazetteer Afghanistan s.v. “Kandahar”). Since he believed Alexandreia/Alexandropolis was a later foundation he suggested (140) that it was located not at Kandahar but at or near Zaranj. Note, in this connection, that Qudama said Alexander built a settlement at Zaranj (Kitâb al-Kharâj 265 in BGA 6:207, trans. de Goeje). Fraser also suggested that ALEXANDREIA in Arachosia was founded by Alexander at the site of Kandahar. Regarding Alexandreia/Alexandropolis in Sakastane, Fraser suggested the use of πλησίον by Isidore in 18 indicated that the particular site lay off the main route of the σταθμοί. He suggested this description fits well with the location of Alexandreia or Alexandropolis near Sakastane at or near Zaranj, which was located off the main road from Aria to Arachosia. The argument is somewhat circular, but not unconvincing. See ALEXANDREIA in Arachosia; and Fraser, Afghan Studies 2 (1979) 16–17 n. 26.

ALEXANDREIA/ANTIOCH IN MARGIANA

According to Pliny (NH 6.46–47)—who relied not on the bematists Diognetos and Baiton, but on some unspecified sources—Alexander founded a city bearing his own name in Margiana (“Margiane . . . in qua Alexander Alexandriam condiderat; qua diruta a barbaris Antiochus Seleuci filius eodem loco restituit Syrianam interfluente Margo qui corrivatur in Zotha lacu; maluerat illam Antiochiam appellari. Urbis amplitudo circumitur stadiis LXX. In hanc Orodes Romanos Crassana clade captos deduxit”). Assuming Pliny was correct in his information, we should like to know when and by whom this settlement might have been founded. Alexander wintered in 329/8 B.C. at Baktra. In the spring of 328, according to Arrian (4.15.7), he returned to Sogdiana. Curtius, however, said (7.10.14ff.) that Alexander crossed the Ochus and Oxus rivers¹ and arrived at the city of Margiana (“Superatis deinde amnibus Ocho et Oxo, ad urbem Margianam pervenit. Circa eam VI oppidis condendis electa sedes est, duo ad meridiem versa, IIII spectantia orientem; modicis inter se spatiis distabant, ne procul repetendum esset mutuum auxilium. Haec omnia sita sunt in editis collibus”). This expedition and the circumstances surrounding the establishment of Alexandreia in Margiana—which is not mentioned by Arrian—have been treated with great skepticism by scholars. As a result, various scholars have suggested that (a) the Macedonian king personally founded Alexandreia in Margiana, (b) Alexander sent someone else—either Krateros or Ptolemy, or (c) it was a Seleucid foundation.²

Pliny adds that Alexandreia was later destroyed “by the barbarians” and that it was then refounded by Antiochos I who built a “Syrian” city on the same site and called it Antioch.³ Strabo (11.10.2) said that, because of its fertility, Antiochos I built a wall 1,500 stades in circumference and founded a city that he named Antioch; he added that the land was particularly good for viticulture. The wall built by Antiochos I has been identified with the city wall at Gyaur Kala that has been partly excavated.⁴ The Hellenistic wall was nearly 8 kilometers in length and stood c. 10 meters above a platform that was at least 3.5 meters high; the wall was multistoried; at the top there was a walkway that measured 1.1 meter in width. This form of wall is attested in Hellenistic Asia Minor, for example, at Side, Perge, and Kaunos. The appearance of this type of wall in Margiana, incidentally, reflects the spread of Hellenistic military architecture throughout the region. The area enclosed by the wall was quadrangular in shape and was traversed by two main roads that crossed at right angles.⁵

Isidore of Charax (14) referred to Antioch in Margiana by name, said it was called “well-watered,” and also noted that there were no villages in the area. Antioch is also mentioned by Ptolemy (6.10.4, “Antioch Margiana”). It is possible that the Seleucid general Demodamas had a role in the founding of Antioch.⁶ Martianus Capella (6.691) and Solinus (48.3, ed. Mommsen) also mentioned that Alexander founded an Alexandreia in Margiana; however, in relating the subsequent history of the settlement they both say Antiochos renamed it “Seleukeia.” The reading “Syrianam” in the text of Pliny NH 6.47 is problematic and undoubtedly corrupt. By reference to Solinus and Martianus Capella, Honigmann (RE s.v. “Seleukeia 10”) suggested this was the original reading in the text of Pliny. Thus, as Tomaschek speculated (RE s.v. “Antiocheia 12”), after Alexandreia was destroyed by the barbarians it was renamed “Seleukeia” and then “Antioch” by Antiochos I.⁷ In fact we cannot, on the basis of the available evidence, make a definitive determination whether the toponym was Seleukeia or Antioch or both in sequence. Nevertheless we may note that the attestation for “Antioch” dates from as early as the first century B.C., whereas the evidence for “Seleukeia” dates from the third century A.D. and later. Finally, Merv is also mentioned in the Iranian tradition as a foundation of Alexander by, for example, al-Dinawari ([41], trans. Nöldeke, Beiträge 42), al-Tabari ([702], trans. Nöldeke, Beiträge 47), Qudama (Kitâb al-Kharâj 265 in BGA 6:207, trans. Goeje), Hamza al-Isfahani (Sini mulûk 40, trans. Pourshariati in Indo-Grecs 124), and the Pahlavi Provincial Capitals of Eranshahr (12, trans. Markwart: “The capital of Marv and the capital of Hare[v] were built by the accursed Sokander the Romaean”). Coins of Antiochos I and Antiochos II and various Graeco-Bactrian kings have been found at Gyaur Kala.⁸

Gyaur Kala, 30 kilometers east of Merv, has been identified as the site of Antioch in Margiana. In the middle of the north wall of Gyaur Kala are the remains of a polygonal enclosure wall, Erk Kala. This was the site of the town during the Achaemenid period; it subsequently became the citadel of the Hellenistic city.⁹

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:672–73; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Alexandreia 3” and “Antiocheia 12”; Honigmann, RE s.v. “Seleukeia 10”; Meyer, Blüte 17–18; Tcherikover, HS 105; Frye, Iran 156; Frumkin, Archaeology 146–47; Knobloch, Oxus 174–76; Leriche in Plateau iranien 311; André and Filliozat, Pline VI.2 60–61; A. B. Bosworth, JHS 101 (1981) 24–29; P. Bernard, JS (1982) 125–38; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 82–84; Masson, Das Land 141–49, 158–62; Orth, Diadochenzeit 108; Holt, Thundering Zeus 27 and n. 16; Fraser, Cities 31 and n. 67, 116–17 and n. 25; Rapin in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 147; id., BAI 12 (1998) 223 n. 49; F. Grenet and C. Rapin, BAI 12 (1998) 79–89; Fraser, Terminology 371.

For the results of excavation at Merv see G. Herrmann, K. Kurbansakhatov, St. J. Simpson et al., Iran 31 (1993) 39–62, Iran 32 (1994) 53–75, Iran 33 (1995) 31–60, Iran 35 (1997) 1–22, Iran 36 (1998) 53–76, Iran 37 (1999) 1–24, Iran 38 (2000) 1–31 (“The International Merv Project”); T. Williams, K. Kurbansakhatov, et al., Iran 40 (2002) 15–41, Iran 41 (2003) 139–70 (“The Ancient Merv Project”); Mairs, Hellenistic Far East 34; www.ucl.ac.uk/silva/merv.

For the ruins known as Köne Kishman on the northeastern periphery of the Merv oasis see A. Bader, V. Gaibov, and G. Koselenko, Mesopotamia 27 (1992) 225–50.

1. The identification of the Ochus River is a major crux; see, for example, Bosworth, JHS 101 (1981) 26–27; id., Comment. 2:108–10 (the present Kunduz); contra: Bernard, JS (1982) 130–31.

2. Three positions have been advanced by scholars regarding the circumstances of the founding of Alexandreia in Margiana: (a) The Macedonian king personally founded Alexandreia in Margiana in the course of his expedition (Engels, Alexander 104–5 and n. 27). (b) Alexander sent someone else (e.g., Droysen, Hist. 2:673; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:294; Tarn, Alexander 2:234–35; Schachermeyr, Alexander 349 and n. 416 [Krateros]; Hammond, Alexander² 195; Holt, Alexander 62 and n. 48 [Ptolemy]); contra: Fraser who objected (Cities 117 and n. 26) that this was contrary to Alexander’s practice of being at the founding of settlements; elsewhere, however (Cities 70), Fraser claimed that Krateros “must be regarded as the most active agent of Alexander’s Indian foundations.” In fact, there are instances where Alexander delegated a subordinate to carry out the establishment of a settlement: e.g., GERASA and SAMAREIA. (c) Because of the weak evidence for this Alexandreia as a foundation of Alexander (Arrian does not mention it), we should consider it a Seleucid foundation (e.g., Tcherikover, HS 105; Fraser, Cities 117–18).

Bosworth examined the Curtius passage (JHS 101 [1981] 23–29; Comment. 2:108) and focused his attention on the fact that the MSS read either “Marganiam” (P, FLV) or “Marginiam” (BM). The emendation to “Margianam” was made as early as the sixteenth century and has been accepted in most modern editions. Bosworth argued against this. He noted that “in his Paris edition of 1678 Michael Le Tellier . . . disputed the emendation on the grounds that the direct route from Bactria to Margiana does not cross the Oxus.” As a result Bosworth claimed (Comment. 2:108) that the “Margania” mentioned by Curtius “is not the ancient Margiana (Mary) but a location in Sogdiana north of the Oxus where Alexander founded not one city but a network of six.” Bosworth correctly noted (Comment. 2:108) that “the hill country described by Curtius . . . cannot easily be reconciled with the alluvial plain around Mary . . . but does fit the area north of the Oxus.” Bosworth remarked that he did not “doubt that the great site at Giaur Kala . . . is the foundation of Antiochus I . . . which was established . . . on the site of an earlier Alexandria” (he did not, however, hazard any suggestion as to which Alexandreia this might have been). Rather, he disputed “the assumption that Alexander founded an Alexandria in Mary and that the foundation is identical with Curtius’ Margania.” Bernard (JS [1982] 125–38) took issue with Bosworth. (a) He correctly noted that the emendation “Margiana” is supported by its appearance in Pliny NH 6.47. (b) He also noted that ceramic ware dated to the Hellenistic period has been found at Gyaur Kala (128). (c) Regarding the six sites in the vicinity of Margiana/Margania/Marginia that Curtius says were chosen for founding settlements, Bernard suggested these settlements were built on old “tépés” of accumulated mud-brick. This is not fully convincing; at any rate, it certainly does not fit Curtius’s description—“in editis collibus”—for the sites. Furthermore, Isidore of Charax (14) said—in the early first century A.D.—there were no villages in the region of Antioch. (d) Bernard admitted there is no specific evidence for the strongholds mentioned by Curtius; on the other hand, he called attention to the wall mentioned by Strabo (11.10.2) and noted that Soviet archaeologists have found major sections of it (see S. A. Vjazigin, Trudy IUTAKE 1 [1949] 260–75; L. I. Merezin, Trudy IUTAKE 16 [1978] 11–15). That having been said, it is important to emphasize that—attractive as the identification of Gyaur Kala with Alexandreia in Margiana is—no archaeological, epigraphic, or numismatic evidence has yet been discovered that would specifically confirm this (cf. Fraser, Cities 117–18: “Thus the evidence for the foundation by Alexander remains weak, and it is wiser to regard it as a Seleucid foundation”). Furthermore, although Pliny says Alexander established an Alexandreia in Margiana, Curtius says nothing about Alexander founding a city. He limits himself to the comment that Alexander arrived at the city of Margiana/Margania/Marginia (“ad urbem Margianam pervenit”). Assuming Curtius is not in error here, the clear implication is that Alexander reached a native city—whatever its name—that was already in existence.

Grenet and Rapin (BAI 12 [1998] 79–89) followed Bosworth in not emending the text of Curtius. They suggested (82–84) that the description of Marginia/Margania “strongly evokes Termez”; this prompted them to identify—as Tarn had done—ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana with Termez; contra: P. Leriche, JA 290 (2002) 411–15. See also Rapin in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 155 n. 50; ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus, n. 2; ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana, n. 4; and ANTIOCH THARMATA in India, n. 2.

3. Compare also HERAKLEIA, which was founded by Alexander and then refounded as ACHAIS/ACHAIA by Antiochos.

Tarn (JHS 60 [1940] 91–92) claimed that Alexandreia at Merv (i.e., Margiana) was destroyed in the same Saka invasion that destroyed ALEXANDREIA Eschate and his alleged Alexandreia Tarmita (see ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana) and that all were then rebuilt—as Antiochs—by Antiochos I.

4. For the identification of the wall attributed to Antiochos I see, for example, V. Zavyalov and St. J. Simpson, Iran 39 (2001) 12–14; and earlier reports in Iran; Zavyalov in After Alexander 313–29 and plan on 313. See also G. Puschnigg, Parthica 10 (2008) 109–10 and plan on 110; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 82–84. For a plan and satellite image of Gyaur Kala see G. Barratt, Iran 31 (1993) 45; and T. Williams et al., Iran 40 (2002) 18.

In an article published in 1995 A. N . Bader et al. have suggested—less convincingly—that the wall of Antiochos I was the extensive outer wall formerly called Giliakin-Chilburj (in Gryphons 39–50, plan on 48) that encircled the Merv area; previously it was thought that it had been built in the Middle Ages. According to Bader et al., “The wall has been almost completely destroyed. Its last clearly visible remains were demolished in 1989–1991. . . . Now only a very small section [approx. 150 m] of it is preserved” (44–45). The outline of the wall has been traced by satellite imaging. According to Bader et al., “It seems to have enclosed the khora of Antioch in Margiana,” an area of about 55–60 km².

5. For the similarities to the walls of Hellenistic cities in Asia Minor, in particular at Side, Perge, and Kaunos see Zavyalov in After Alexander 327. In a personal communication Pierre Leriche observed: “Au cours du Colloque After Alexander, j’ai exprimé quelques doutes sur le rapprochement entre Merv et Sidè, Pergé et Kaunos, mais il est vrai que je ne les ai pas écrits.” For the two main roads that crossed at right angles see, for example, P. Bernard, JS (1982) 128.

6. For Demodamas see ALEXANDREIA/ANTIOCH in Scythia.

7. Cf. GADARA in southern Syria, which, according to Stephanos (s.v. “Gadara”), was called both Antioch and Seleukeia.

8. For the coins found at Gyaur Kala see N. M. Smirnova, AC 3 (1996) 260–85: Antiochos I, no. 16; Antiochos II, nos. 17–18; Graeco-Bactrian kings, nos. 22–25, 28–35, 37–44; id., Numismatika e Epigrafik 16 (1999) 256, nos. 2–3 ( = Houghton and Lorber, Seleucid Coins 1.1:150, nos. 422–23): Antiochos I.

9. On the location and its importance see Frumkin, Archaeology 146–52; Masson, Das Land 145–50 (plan on p. 146); Frye, Iran 18; Fraser, Cities 117 n. 25. Note, however, Rapin’s caution: “Le site de Gyaur-kala constitue incontestablement la plus importante ville de l’époque hellénistique en Margiane, mais aucune source ne fournit les éléments suffisants pour l’assimiler avec certitude à cette Alexandrie-Antioche” (BAI 13 [1998] 223, n. 49; see also Rapin, Afghanistan ancien carrefour 147 n. 20). On Erk Kala see Zavyalov in After Alexander 313–14; and IASONION.

ALEXANDREIA/ANTIOCH IN SCYTHIA

The Alexander Romance and the Romance tradition mention an Alexandreia in Scythia.¹ W. W. Tarn has suggested this was ALEXANDREIA Eschate and that it was subsequently refounded as the Antioch in Scythia recorded by Stephanos (s.v. “Antioch 10”).²

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:751; Tcherikover, HS 106; Tarn, GBI² 83–84; id., JHS 60 (1940) 90–94; Brodersen, Komment. 161; Fraser, Cities 33 and n. 72; id., Terminology 332.

1. For Alexandreia in Scythia in the Alexander Romance and the Romance tradition see, for example, the Α recension, 3.37; Β recension, 3.35; Γ recension 3.35; Armenian version 285, trans. Wolohojian; Syriac version 3.24, trans. Wallis Budge; Hebrew version 130, trans. Kazis; Excerpta Latina Barbari 34b, ed. Schoene (“Alexandriam Scythiam in Egeis”); Julius Valerius 3.35, ed. Rosellini; Chronicon Paschale 321, CSHB 4.1; Historia de Preliis 130, ed. Hilka.

2. The Tab. Peut. (XI.5) placed Alexandreia and Antioch side by side on the south bank of the Jaxartes (Araxes) River. We should, prima facie, conclude that the existence of the two toponyms on the map is evidence for the separate existence of the two cities. Nevertheless, Tarn (JHS 60 [1940] 91–92) claimed that Alexandreia Eschate was destroyed in the same Saka invasion that destroyed ALEXANDREIA at Merv (i.e., Margiana). He pointed out that “in the Table, below Alexandria . . . and spatially covering both names, Alexandria and Antioch, though clearly referring to the Alexander-name are the words “Hic Alexander responsum accepit. Usque quo Alexander”; and below that . . . a picture of two altars. . . . The Peutinger Table then would suffice to show that this northern Antioch replaced Alexandria; but important confirmation is given by the proceedings of Demodamas.” Tarn then claimed that Demodamas of Miletos was one of the Seleucid strategoi of Bactria-Sogdiana between c. 290 and 280 B.C., and that we know two things about him: (a) he crossed the Jaxartes, and (b) he built “altars” to Apollo, “the two things being in some way connected” (92; see Pliny NH 6.49: “transcendit eum amnem Demodamas, Seleuci et Antiochi regum dux, quem maxime sequimur in his, arasque Apollini Didymaeo statuit”; the phrase “Seleuci et Antiochi regum dux” would, according to Tarn, refer to the period 293–280 B.C., when Seleukos and Antiochos ruled jointly). Tarn noted that “when Alexander was building Alexandria-Chojend, he had to cross the river and drive away the nomads who were threatening him from the nothern bank; as no Greek king ever sought or attempted to hold anything north of the river, Demodamas’ crossing may have served the same purpose as Alexander’s, in connection with the building of the new Antioch. As to his altars, Pliny, after mentioning ‘Alexandria in the farthest bounds of the Sogdians,’ says that altars had been set up there (ibi) by Heracles, Dionysus, Semiramis, Cyrus and Alexander, whose expeditions all ended there. . . . The first three names are mythical, and if Cyrus set up altars it must have been at his own foundation Cyropolis. . . . There can therefore be no doubt that the two altars . . . which appear in the Peutinger Table below Alexandria are meant for Alexander’s; the story must have been that he set them up . . . when the gods forbade him to go further. Demodamas’ altars therefore, which he set up to Apollo of Didyma, ancestor and patron of the Seleucids, and which were connected with his crossing of the Jaxartes, must have been connected with the new Antioch as Alexander’s had been with his Alexandria. Antioch ‘in Scythia’ was therefore Alexandria-Chojend refounded.” In the first edition of GBI (83 and n. 3), incidentally, Tarn commented that a “mysterious Antioch in Scythia . . . conceivably . . . was only Alexandria-Eschate refounded.” In the addenda to the second edition he wrote “certain” and referred the reader to his JHS 60 (1940) article; see also Alexander 2:235–36, 243; followed by Briant (OCD³ s.v. “Alexandreia 5”), who said Alexandreia Eschate was renamed Antioch by Antiochos I.

Nota bene, however, that in an important study L. Robert (BCH 108 [1984] 467–72) correctly pointed out that, as far as we know, Demodamas was a Seleucid general (“Seleuci et Antiochi regum dux”), not necessarily the strategos of Bactria-Sogdiana. Furthermore, he demonstrated, by reference to I. Didyma 480.2 ( = Günther, Orakel p. 23) and 479.1 ( = OGIS 213 = Günther, Orakel p. 29), that Demodamas probably crossed the Jaxartes and built the altars to Apollo of Didyma some time before 300 B.C. On Demodamas see also Solinus 49.5 (ed. Mommsen); Stephanos s.v. “Antissa”; FGrH 428 T1–3; OGIS 213. See also Haussoullier, Milet 34–49; Holleaux, Etudes 3: 111–17; J. Wolski, Klio 38 (1960) 113–15; Bosworth, Comment. 2:17; Fraser, Cities 33 n. 72.

Cf. Fraser (Terminology 332), who soberly observed that Antioch in Scythia was “otherwise unknown, unless it be supposed (as by Tcherikover, p. 106) that Demodamas of Miletus, . . . the military commander of Seleukos and Antiochus I, who is said to have crossed the Jaxartes, founded an Antioch there, to mark the limits of Empire,” Droysen (Hist. 2:751) believed that Antioch in Scythia was located in the vicinity of the Jaxartes.

ALEXANDREIA/ANTIOCH THARMATA

See ANTIOCH THARMATA in India; ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana, nn. 2 and 3; ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus, n. 2.

ALEXANDREIA ESCHATE

Arrian (4.1.3–4, trans. Brunt) said that in the course of campaigning north of the Hindu Kush and the Oxus River in Sogdiana in 329 B.C. Alexander “was himself planning to found a city on the Tanais and to give it his own name. For in his view the site was suitable for the city to rise to greatness, and it would be well placed for any eventual invasion of Scythia and as a defence bastion of the country against the raids of the barbarians dwelling on the other side of the river. He thought that the city would actually rise to greatness because of the number of settlers and the splendour of its name.”¹ After capturing the city of Cyropolis (Arr. 4.3.1–4), Alexander applied himself to building Alexandreia.² According to Arrian (4.4.1), “Alexander himself now spent twenty days in building the wall of the city he proposed to found, and settling there some Greek mercenaries, any of the neighbouring barbarians who shared in the settlement as volunteers, and also some Macedonians from the army who were no longer fit for active service. He then sacrificed to the gods in accordance with his custom and held a cavalry and athletic contest” (trans. Brunt). Curtius Rufus (7.6.26) adds that Alexander built the settlement on the former site of his camp. He also claimed that the building of the city wall took only seventeen days and said it measured 26 stades (see also Justin 12.5.12).³

This settlement is quite probably to be identified with Alexandreia Eschate and is mentioned by Ptolemy (6.12.6; cf. 8.23.14), Pliny (NH 6.49: “the Sogdiani . . . on the farthest confines of their territory [is] Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great,” trans. Rackham), the Itinerarium Alexandri ([36] 81, ed. Hausmann), and Qudama (“l’extrême Alexandrie,” Kitâb al-Kharâj 265 in BGA 6:206, trans., de Goeje). In addition, Appian (Syr. 57) included an ALEXANDRESCHATA in Scythia among the foundations of Seleukos I Nikator.⁴ It is not clear, however, whether this was an error on the part of Appian, or, in fact, Seleukos actually refounded the settlement. The settlement is also mentioned under the year 328/7 B.C. in the Marmor Parium (FGrH 239 B7): ὠικίσθη δὲ πρὸς τῶι Τανάι πόλις ῾Ελληνίς. P. M. Fraser suggested that, although the toponym survived in Pliny, Ptolemy, and Qudama, the settlement was among the first to fall to Saka inroads from the north.⁵ W. W. Tarn has suggested that (a) this Alexandreia is identical with the ALEXANDREIA in Scythia mentioned by the Alexander Romance and Qudama, and that (b) it was destroyed when ALEXANDREIA at Merv (i.e., Margiana) and (the alleged) Alexandreia Tarmita were destroyed and was rebuilt by Antiochos I Soter as ANTIOCH in Scythia (which is recorded by Stephanos, s.v. “Antioch 10”).⁶

Although we do not definitely know the location, the most likely suggestion identifies it with Khojend.⁷

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:679; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Alexandreia 5”; von Schwarz, Alexander 47–51; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:293, “Alexandreia am Jaxartes”; Tcherikover, HS 106; Tarn, Alexander 2:235–36, 244; Bosworth, Comment. 2:15–17; Orth, Diadochenzeit 108; Holt, Thundering Zeus 27 and n. 16; Briant, OCD³ s.v. “Alexandreia 5”; Fraser, Cities 151–53.

For excavation reports see references cited by Fraser, Cities 151 n. 92.

1. Stephanos (s.v. “Alexandreia 18”) recorded an ALEXANDREIA on the Tanais. Arrian (3.30.7) referred to the Tanais—and differentiated it from the European Tanais (Don)—and noted that the natives called it the Jaxartes (on the different MS readings [“Orxantes”] and at 7.16.3 [“Oxyartes”] see Brunt’s note to 3.30.7 [in the new Loeb edition of Arrian] and Bosworth, Comment. 1:378 [“There was no uniformity of spelling”]; for the spelling Jaxartes see, for example, Strabo 11.6.1); this is the modern Syr Darya. Alexandreia on the Tanais may be identified with Alexandreia Eschate. On the confusion in antiquity regarding the Tanais see, for example, Pearson, Histories 162–63; Bosworth, Comment. 1:377–78; Brunt, Arrian 1:524–25.

2. On Cyropolis (Kyreschata) see also Strabo 11.11.4; Stephanos, s.v. “Kyrou Polis” (ἣ καὶ Κυρέσχατα καλεῖται, πόλις πρὸς τοῖς ἐσχάτοις Περσίδος); Ptol. 6.12.5 (“Kyreschata”); Amm. Marc. 23.6.59 (“Cyreschata”); see also E. Benveniste, JA 224 (1943/1945) 163–66; Bosworth, Comment. 2:19; Fraser (Cities 67, 152 and n. 93), who suggested that Alexander probably intended that Alexandreia would supersede Cyropolis.

3. Holt (Bactria 54–59; id., Anc. Maced. 4 [1986] 316–19; see also Briant, Paysans 244–47) has argued that (a) Alexander wanted to “break the military and economic bonds between Scythia and Sogdiana,” (b) he founded Alexandreia Eschate as a “bulwark between the Sogdians and Scythians . . . for the military purpose of enforcing a sterile frontier against the Scythians,” and (c) the Sogdian revolt was a direct response to the founding of this settlement. For Bosworth’s vigorous refutation see Comment. 2:16 (“Holt’s hypothesis . . . smooths over the explicit evidence for hostility and conflict between the Sogdian population, static in their domiciles along the great rivers and the nomad Sacae. . . . Alexander is more likely to be following an Achaemenid precedent of containment and deliberately expanding the network of cities along the frontier. The announcement of the new city might have evoked justified fears that existing settlements . . . would lose territory to it and so contributed to the outbreak of revolt”); id., JHS 110 (1990) 257; and E. Bloedow (PdP 46 [1991] 52–54), who noted that the revolt in Sogdiana had broken out and become widespread before the building of the settlement.

4. For the suggestion that Seleukos refounded the settlement see Tcherikover, HS 106; Brodersen, Komment. 161; and Bosworth (Comment. 2:17), who also suggested that Alexandreia Eschate might have been destroyed by the Saka nomads. He called attention to Appian’s attribution of Alexandreschata to Seleukos and speculated—if the tradition is not completely corrupt—that the passage could be alluding to a second foundation. Fraser (Cities 66–67, 38, 153 n. 94) identified Appian’s Alexandreschata with Alexandreia Eschate and dismissed the ascription to Seleukos as an error of Appian or an unfounded claim.

5. On the Saka invasion see, for example, Tarn, JHS 60 (1940) 93–94; Bosworth, Comment. 2:17.

6. Tarn, JHS 60 (1940) 91–93; and ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana, n. 3.

7. For the probable location of Alexandreia Eschate at or near Khojend see, for example, Tomaschek, Tcherikover, and Fraser in works cited above; Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:167; Brodersen, Komment. 161; N. Negmatov, JCA 9 (1986) 43–45. At Khojend, excavation at the old citadel suggests the site was occupied from the Achaemenid through the Hellenistic period and later (see Fraser, Cities 151 and n. 92 and references cited there). Of course this does not prove the identification of Alexandreia Eschate with Khojend.

Bosworth noted (Comment. 2:15–16) that the distance from Khojend to “Samarkand (c. 290 km) corresponds exactly with the 1,500 stades of Arrian 4.6.4, and it is on a highly strategic site, dominating the western access to the Fergana basin. Unfortunately the exact site has not been located, but it is of some interest that 4 km south of Khodzent is Chorsu-Gozien, an ancient urban site where several archaeological finds have occurred, notably the neo-Attic Leninabad Krater.” (On the Leninabad crater see B. A. Litvinskij and N. O. Tursunov, East and West 24 [1974] 89–110; on the authenticity of the krater see P. Bernard in Cultes et monuments religieux dans l’Asie centrale préislamique [Paris, 1987] 27–28). Bosworth suggested this may be the site of Alexandreia Eschate.

In a private communication, Paul Bernard provides the following additional information: “En 1986 deux anses d’amphores estampillées inédites, trouvées fortuitement sur le site de la ville ancienne d’Alexandrie Ultime-Khodjend et que j’ai moi-meme examinées, sont entrées au musée de Dushambé: l’une au nom de Kléophôn fils de Pheidippos est thasienne (370–355 d’après Y. Garlan), l’autre d’Héraclée Pontique, au nom de Dionysios, fils de Molossos, pourrait etre du temps d’Alexandre”; see also Y. Garlan in BCH Supplément 13:269.

For a map see Bosworth, Comment. 2:14.

ALEXANDREIA IN ARACHOSIA

Neither the Alexander historians nor the earlier Hellenistic geographers mention Alexandreia in Arachosia. The toponym is found in Isidore (19): Ἀλεξανδρόπολις μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας, ἔστι δε Ἑλληνίς (FGrH 781; in fact Tarn suggested that the form Ἀλεξανδρόπολις in Isidore [19] probably resulted from textual corruption; the correct form would undoubtedly be Ἀλεξάνδρεια).¹

The name Alexandreia is also found in Ammianus (23.6.72 = L’Inde 225), Ptolemy (6.20.4), and Stephanos (s.v. “Alexandreia 12 and 15”).² On the other hand, Strabo, citing Eratosthenes (11.8.9 = Berger, Fragmente IIIB 20), Pliny (NH 6.92, “Arachosia cum flumine et oppido eiusdem nominis”), Stephanos (s.v. “Arachotoi”) and Ptolemy (6.20.5) mention Arachotoi or Arachotos. Pliny, citing the bematists Diognetos and Baiton, also refers to an “Arachosiorum oppidum” (NH 6.61) that is not mentioned by either Isidore or Ammianus. Presumably Arachotoi was the local name for Alexandreia in Arachosia.³ It is not possible to say whether Curtius Rufus’s reference (7.3.1–2) to 4,000 Greek infantry and 600 cavalry being left as a garrison in Arachosia is to be connected with the founding or populating of Alexandreia. The silence of the early sources regarding Alexandreia in Arachosia has prompted a debate about (a) whether—assuming it existed—it was founded by Alexander and (b) its location.

It is important to note that the identification of Alexandreia in Arachosia mentioned by Isidore with Arachotoi mentioned by Strabo and Pliny is a crucial assumption, but only that. As Fraser has remarked, “If that equation does not hold, there is no peg available in the literary wardrobe on which to hang an Alexandria of Arachosia founded by Alexander.”⁴

The probability that there was an Achaemenid and, subsequently, an early Hellenistic settlement—or, at the very least, strong lines of communication with the Greek world—at Kandahar was indicated by epigraphic discoveries at and behind the Old City: an Elamite cuneiform inscription, a bilingual—Greek and Aramaic—edict of Asoka, a second Asokan inscription in Greek, and two Greek inscriptions—an early (c. 275 B.C.) Hellenistic dedication on a statue base, and a funerary epigram of Sophytos dated to the late second century B.C.⁵ Furthermore, the ninth-century adaptor of Ptolemy, al-Khuwarizmi, identified Kandahar with Alexandreia in Arachosia. In the present state of the evidence this seems the most likely identification.⁶ There is no extant coinage that can definitely be attributed to this Alexandreia.⁷

We do not know when this Alexandreia was founded. Assuming Alexander did found the settlement, we may also assume it was initially established at the time of his expedition to Bactra after the Philotas affair, that is, 330 B.C (Arr. 3.28.1) or soon after, on his orders.

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:676; Berger, Fragmente 318–19; Tomaschek, RE s.vv. “Alexandreia 12,” “Arachotos 2”; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:293; Tcherikover, HS 102; Tarn, GBI² 470–71; P. H. L. Eggermont, Persica 2 (1965–1966) 64–65; Herzfeld, Empire 335 ; K. Fischer, BJ 167 (1967) 197–99; P. Bernard, St. Iran. 3 (1974) 171–84; id., JS (2005) 260–356; Brunt, Arrian 1:499–503; Bosworth, Comment. 1:368–69; André and Filliozat, Pline VI.2 89–90, 120; André and Filliozat, L’Inde 399; Orth, Diadochenzeit 107; Briant, OCD³ s.v. “Alexandria 3”; Fraser, Afghan Studies 2 (1979) 16–17; id., Cities 100–101, 132–40; Kuhrt, PNB s.v. “Arachosia.”

For the results of excavation at Kandahar see, for example, MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 230–32, 262–63; Gazetteer Afghanistan s.v. “Kandahar” (maps in vol. 2); A. W. McNicoll and W. Ball, Excavations at Kandahar 1974 and 1975 (Oxford, 1996); and S. Helms, Excavations at Old Kandahar in Afghanistan 1976–1978 (Oxford, 1997); P. Bernard, JS (2005) 277–81 and publications cited on p. 277 n. 118; Mairs, Hellenistic Far East 35.

1. For the likely corruption in the text of Isidore 18–19 see Tarn, GBI² 471 and n. 1; accepted by Fraser (Cities 138); see also ALEXANDREIA/ALEXANDROPOLIS in Sakastane.

According to Appian (Syr. 57), among the foundations of Seleukos I Nikator were some named in honor of Alexander the Great. These included Alexandreschata in Scythia (for which see ALEXANDREIA Eschate) and ALEXANDROPOLIS in India. It is not clear which settlement the latter was. Goukowsky (Essai 1:329 n. 198) thought it was Alexandreia in Arachosia; Tcherikover (HS 166) believed it was to be identified with an Indian Alexander settlement that Seleukos refounded. See also Brodersen, Komment. 161. Tarn claimed the toponym Alexandropolis indicated this was a military colony, though he admitted there is no explicit evidence to support this (GBI² 7 n. 2, 471; Alexander 2:249 and n. 2); contra: R. Burn, JRAS (1941) 68.

2. Actually, Stephanos twice records an Alexandreia in Arachosia (s.v. “Alexandreia 12 ἐν Ἀραχώτοις” and “Alexandreia 15 παρὰ τοῖς Ἀραχώτοις, ὁμοροῦσα τῇ Ἰνδικῇ”). A number of explanations for the apparent redundancy—none completely satisfactory—have been offered. For example, Tarn speculated (GBI² 470 n. 4) that no. 15 might be a duplicate of no. 12 or possibly a duplicate of no. 5 (“in Opianae”). Later (Alexander 2:241) he suggested that no. 12 was Alexandreia, nicknamed PROPHTHASIA, in Seistan, which he located at Zaranj, and no. 15 was located at Ghazni. Bernard (St. Iran. 3 [1974] 174 n. 6) claimed there was only one Alexandreia in Arachosia and that Stephanos erred in positing two. Bernard suggested that Stephanos’s error was based on Strabo, who, following Eratosthenes, first mentioned (11.8.8 = Berger, Fragmente IIIB 63) the (people) Arachotoi, the Massagetai, and the Bactrians along the Oxus and then (11.8.9) referred to the city Arachotoi. In fact, Bernard noted that Strabo (or Eratosthenes or the MS tradition) mistakenly made the (people) Arachotoi the neighbors of the Massagetai and the Bactrians along the Oxus. Bernard suggested that, based on this information, Stephanos wrongly concluded there were two “Arachosian” cities and, hence, two distinct Alexandreias in Arachosia; see also Fraser (Cities 139 n. 66), who believed the duplication probably resulted from the fact that, according to Strabo (11.8.8), Eratosthenes placed an Arachosia along the Oxus. But, acccording to Fraser, “the attribution to Eratosthenes can hardly stand . . . for Eratosthenes knew very well that Arachosia was south of the Hindu Kush.” As for Ghazni, Fraser noted that excavation there has not yet penetrated to pre-Islamic levels (see below, n. 6). Another explanation suggests emending the text from Ἀ ραχωτούς to Ἀ ρ(ε)ίους (see Berger, Fragmente 318–19). However, as Fraser has correctly objected, there is no textual justification for this. Daffina’s identification (L’immigrazione 100–102) of Arachotoi with Χοροχοὰδ πόλις (Isidore of Charax 19) rather than with Alexandreia in Arachosia is not convincing; see Bernard, St. Iran. 3 (1974) 176. Tcherikover (HS 103) understood Stephanos s.v. “Alexandreia 12 and 15” to refer to ALEXANDREIA in Sakastane.

3. See further Bernard, St. Iran. 3 (1974) 175–82; and Rapin in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 163.

4. Cities 133. Brunt (Arrian 1:502–3) argued that the fact that Strabo and Pliny mention the Arachotian town and not Alexandreia in Arachosia (whereas they do refer to ALEXANDREIA in Aria and PROPHTHASIA) suggests the two places were not identical; see also Bosworth, Comment. 1:369 (“Nothing compels us to . . . identify Alexandria [sc. in Arachosia] with the Arachosian town of the bematists”).

5. In general, for the inscriptions found at Old Kandahar see Mairs, Hellenistic Far East 36–37. For the cuneiform inscription see Fraser, Cities 136 n. 61; id., Afghan Studies 3–4 (1982) 13. For the bilingual inscription see Schlumberger et al., JA 246 (1958) 1–48; J. Filliozat, Epigraphica Indica 34 (1961–1962) 1–8; Pugliese Carratelli and Garbini, Asoka 1–62; Falk, Asokan Sites 242–43; for the Greek text see SEG 20:326 = I. Estremo Oriente 290 = Euphrat 202 = IGIAC 82; Bernard in Greek Archaeology 95–96. For the second Asokan inscription see Schlumberger, CRAI (1964) 126–40; Schlumberger et al., Epigraphica Indica 37 (1968) 193–200; Bernard in Greek Archaeology 96–103 = IGIAC 83; and Falk, Asokan Sites 244–45.

For the inscribed statue base see SEG 30:1664 = Fraser, Afghan Studies 2 (1979) 9–10. Lines 2–3 read: ΘHPOΣA [–––––––] στῆ͂σα τόδε εἰς τέμε[ν]ος | υἱὸς ’Αριστώνακτος AΛΕΞ [––––––––] ἐ {ι?}νἀστοῖς; Steinepigramme 3:8, no. 12/02/01; I. Estremo Oriente 293 = Euphrat 106 = IGIAC 81. The fragmentary Greek text consisted of at least two elegaic couplets that formed a metrical dedication of a statue group. Fraser observed that the dedication implied the existence of a sanctuary and, hence, a Greek colony at Kandahar; see also P. Bernard (in Greek Archaeology 103): “La date haute de cette dédicace, vers 275 av. n.è., enlève tous les doutes que l’on pouvait avoir sur l’existence à Kandahar d’une colonie grecque foundée par Alexandre sur le site d’une ville déjà existante.”

A. N. Oikonomides, ZPE 56 [1984] 145–47 (see also id., AncW 12 [1985] 69–71) restored these lines as θηρὸς Ἀ[λεξάνδρου] σ̣τῆ͂σα τόδε εἰς τέμε[ν]ος | υἱὸς Ἀριστώνακτος Ἀλεξ[ανδρέων] δ᾽̣̣ εἰ̣ν ἀστοῖς. According to Oikonomides, the restoration verified the location of Alexandreia in Arachosia at Kandahar and indicated that the city had a special temenos for the cult of its founder, Alexander the Great. Note, however, that Oikonomides’ restoration is very unlikely; see Pleket, SEG 34:1434; and Fraser, Cities 136 n. 61 (“There are no positive grounds for restoring Ἀ[λεξάνδρεύς] in the lacuna in line 2 of the text. It would be exceptional (but not unparalleled) for a dedicant to refer to himself by his ethnic in making a dedication in his home-town. The supplement therefore cannot be used as a confirmation of the identification of the city”). For the same lines W. Peek (ZPE 60 [1985] 76) has suggested θηρὸς Ἀ[ριστομένης] στῆ͂σα τόδε εἰς τέμενος | υἱὸς Ἀριστώνακτος. ἀλεξι̣[̣κάκοιο] δ᾽̣̣ ἐν ἀστοῖς. Steinepigramme 4:470, no. 23/13 has the following: θηρὸς Ἀ[. . . . . . . . . . . ] στῆ͂σα τόδε εἰς τέμενος |υἱὸς Ἀριστώνακτος Ἀλεξ[. . . . . . . ] εἰ̣ν̣ ἀστοῖς.

For the funerary epigram of Sophytos see P. Bernard, G.-J. Pinault, and G. Rougemont, JS (2004) 227–332; and SEG 54:1568; R. Schmitt, I-IJ 49 (2006) 352; Coloru, Da Alessandro pp. 289–290, no. 6; and IGIAC 84.

6. In his entry on the cities corresponding to Ptolemy 6.20.4–5, al-Khuwarizmi mentions “the eastern Iskandariya” as corresponding to Arachotos. He says “a river rises in the region between Iskandariya of the East and the mountains close by and runs between the city of Iskandariya and the mountain, and close to Kandahar” (see Fraser, Cities 100–101; and Nallino, Raccolta 508). This is strikingly close to Isidore (19), who remarked that the Arachotos River flows by Alexandreia in Arachosia (καὶ παραρρεῖ αὐτὴν ποταμὸς Ἀραχωτός). Fraser noted (Cities 101 and map at end; see also 139 n. 66, correcting his earlier acceptance [Afghan Studies 2 (1979) 13] of the identification of ALEXANDREIA in Sakastane with Kandahar) that this is the earliest Arabic reference to Kandahar and makes “virtually certain the equation Alexandria in Arachosia = Qandahar.” Note, however, Ball (SAS 4 [1988] 131), who, without referring to al-Khuwarizmi, claimed that the earliest mention of Kandahar that definitely refers to the one in Afghanistan dates to the thirteenth century.

For Kandahar as the site of Alexandreia in Arachosia see also, for example, Meyer, Blüte 31; Tcherikover, HS 102; G. Fussman, Arts asiatiques 13 (1966) 32–57, esp. 41; Daffina, Immigrazione 104–5; Fischer, BJ (1967) 195–99; Bernard, St. Iran. 3 (1974) 175–76; MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 188; Bosworth, Comment. 1:368. On Kandahar see, for example, Le Strange, Caliphate 347; Fischer, BJ (1967) 129–232 (map opp. p. 134); W. Ball, SAS 4 (1988) 115–42; Bosworth, EI² s.v. “Kandahar”; Ball, Monuments of Afghanistan 228–33; and P. Bernard, JS (2005) 261, 265–69. Cf. Tarn (GBI² 14, 470–71; Alexander 2:234, 241), following Droysen (Hist. 2:676–77), who—unconvincingly—placed Alexandreia in Arachosia at Ghazni (see above, n. 2).

Fraser (Cities 140) noted that at Kandahar there is Achaemenid and early Hellenistic material (see above), but at Ghazni excavation has not penetrated to pre-Islamic levels. Hence we cannot at present say what material remains are to be found at the latter site. The objection is, of course, ex silentio. On Ghazni see, for example, Le Strange, Caliphate 348; A. Bombaci, East and West 8 (1957) 247–59; Fischer in Archaeology of Afghanistan 311–13; Gazetteer Afghanistan s.v. “Ghazni”; Ball, Monuments of Afghanistan 190–93.

Foucher (Vieille Route 217) denied that the toponym Kandahar perpetuated the name Alexandreia.

7. In 1984 A. Houghton and W. Moore (ANS MN 29:1–6) tentatively suggested that a series of Alexander type issues (including tetradrachms, drachms, and hemidrachms) struck in the name of Antiochos might have been produced at a mint at Alexandreia in Arachosia. Subsequently (ANS MN 33 [1988] 58), noting Bernard’s proposal (Aï Khanoum 4:91) that Arachosia broke away from Seleucid control at the end of the fourth century and fell under Mauryan influence, they retracted this suggestion.

ALEXANDREIA IN ARIA

According to Strabo (11.10.1; see also 11.8.9, 15.2.8) there were three poleis in Aria—ARTAKOANA/Artakaena, Alexandreia, and ACHAIA. He noted that all were named after their founders. Pliny (NH 6.61) said that Alexander founded Alexandreia in Aria.¹ Stephanos (s.v. “Alexandreia 7”) also mentioned the city, as—most probably—did Ammianus (23.6.69).²

It is commonly agreed that Alexandreia was “within the general area of Herat.” Nevertheless, no extensive excavations at Herat have been undertaken. As a result, the precise location of Alexandreia has not yet been identified. As P. M. Fraser has observed, “It is natural to suppose that Islamic Herat stood on the site chosen by Alexander for his new city, but there is no evidence that the citadel was in existence before the Islamic period. . . . We can only say that in general terms the site of Herat seems the most likely position for the city, facing the river and protected by the mountains to the north.”³

This Alexandreia is not mentioned in any of the surviving Alexander historians. On the other hand, it does appear in the Perso-Arabic (Iranian) and the Arabic tradition. Qudama (Kitâb al-Kharâj 265 in BGA 6:207, trans. Goeje), al-Tabari (p. 47, trans. Nöldeke), and Hamza al-Isfahani (Sini mulûk 40, trans. Pourshariati in Indo-Grecs 124) record Herat (which has been suggested as the site of Alexandreia in Aria; see below) as a foundation of Alexander. Yakut also says that Herat was built by Alexander. However, as Fraser has noted, Qudama does not say it was called Iskandariya, and Yakut does not include the identification in his list of Iskandariyas.⁴

In the past it has been suggested that Alexandreia and ARTAKOANA/ARTAKAENA were identical. However, the sources that discuss Aria mention both Artakoana and Alexandreia, clearly suggesting they were separate cities (Strabo 11.10.1; Isidore of Charax 15; Pliny NH 6.93; Ptol. 6.17.17).⁵ It is not clear if there was a Seleucid royal mint at Artakoana/Alexandereia in Aria.⁶

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:673–74; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Alexandreia 2”; Tcherikover, HS 102; Kaerst, Hellenismus 1:424; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:293; Bosworth, Comment. 1:356–57; André and Filliozat, Pline VI.2 89, 121, 122–23; Fraser, Cities 109–13.

1. For the possibility that Pliny NH 6.92 also refers to this settlement see ALEXANDREIA near Baktra, n. 2.

2. Bernard has demonstrated (JS [1982] 221) that the Alexandreia mentioned by Ammianus (23.6.69) was in Aria rather than ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana (so Goukowsky, Essai 1:346 n. 77).

3. Fraser, Cities 113. For the likely location of Alexandreia at Herat see, for example, Droysen, Hist. 2:674; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Alexandreia 2”; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:293; Tcherikover, HS 102; Tarn, Alexander 2:234 and n. 5, 241; Gazetteer Afghanistan s.v. “Herat”; Allchin and Hammond, Archaeology of Afghanistan 188; Fraser, Cities 110–13 (“[Alexandreia] was evidently built somewhere near the site of Artacoana. . . . Though how near it is not possible to determine. . . . The exact location of Alexander’s city and its relation to Artacoana alike remain unknown, and unless excavations in depth are ever undertaken at Herât the first problem will remain unsolved”). On Herat see also A. Lezine, BEO 18 (1963–1964) 127–45; and Ball, Monuments of Afghanistan 200–210.

4. Cities 111–12 and n. 16. See also the Pahlavi Provincial Capitals of Eranshahr 12 (trans. Markwart and comments on p. 47).

5. For the earlier view that identified Alexandreia with ARTAKOANA see, for example, Tomaschek, RE s.vv. “Alexandreia 2” and “Artakoana” (Alexandreia was the lower city, i.e., the commercial center, and Artakoana designated the citadel); Meyer, Blüte 31; Tcherikover, HS 102; Newell, ESM 256; Fox, Alexander 280. For the separate identity of the two cities see, for example, Bevan, Seleucus 1:269 n. 1 (“not identical . . . but they may have been close together, perhaps on opposite banks of the [Arius] river”); Bosworth, Comment. 1:356–57; Fraser, Cities 110 and n. 15. For Artakoana see also Arr. 3.25.5; Diod. 17.78.1. The location of Artakoana is not yet definitely known. Engels (Alexander 90–91 and map 11) believed “the site of the city will be rather to the north and east of Sousia. . . . If Artacoana is located in the Soviet Union, it will only be a matter of time before . . . excavations . . . will uncover it”; Bosworth suggested it was “somewhere along the Hari Rud in the vicinity of Herat” (Comment. 1:357).

At NH 6.93 Pliny records Artacoana and Artacabene as two separate towns. It is generally agreed that Pliny was mistaken and that the references are to one and the same town. See, for example, Bevan, Seleucus 1:268 n. 3 (“ ‘Artacabene’ is obviously only another way of writing the same Persian name which is represented by ‘Artacoana’ ”); Tcherikover, HS 102; André and Filliozat, Pline VI.2 123 (“Pline a commis une erreur en considérant Artacoana et Artacabene, deux formes du meme nom, comme deux villes différentes”); and K. Ehling, SNR 76 (1997) 32–33.

6. For the possiblity that there was a Seleucid royal mint at Artakoana/Alexandereia in Aria see HEKATOMPYLOS in Parthia, n. 6.

ALEXANDREIA IN OPIANE

See ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus.

ALEXANDREIA IN PARAPAMISADAI

See ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus.

ALEXANDREIA IN SOGDIANA

See ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana.

ALEXANDREIA KAPISA

See ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus, n. 8.

ALEXANDREIA NEAR BAKTRA

According to Diodorus (17.83.2) Alexander built “other” cities in Bactria and Sogdiana; Strabo (11.11.4) specifically says eight cities, Justin (12.5.12–13) says twelve. Stephanos (s.v. “Alexandreia 11”) is our only extant source for Alexandreia near Baktra (κατὰ Βάκτρα).¹ It is not clear whether this settlement is identical with ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana.²

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:680; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Alexandreia 4”; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:293–94; Tcherikover, HS 104–5; Tarn, GBI² 115 and n. 1; id., Alexander 2:241; Fraser, Cities 153–54.

1. Tarn suggested that Baktra (modern Balkh) was refounded as an Alexandreia and that it was probably identical with Stephanos’s Alexandreia near Baktra. Cf. Fraser, Cities 154 n. 96 (“Ἀ. κατὰ Βάκτρα itself remains in limbo”); and Rapin in Afghanistan ancien Carrefour 147 (Alexandreia near Baktra “n’est pas véritablement identifiable”). For Balkh see Ball, Monuments of Afghanistan 154–63.

2. Tcherikover (HS 104–5) suggested that Pliny NH 6.92 (“haec regio est ex adverso Bactrianorum deinde [sc. regio] cuius oppidum Alexandria, a conditore dictum”) referred to this Alexandreia. However, the text is problematic. I note the following texts:

Ansart (1829) and Ajasson de Grandsagne (1830): “haec regio est ex adverso. Bactrianorum deinde, cuius oppidum Alexandria, a conditore dictum.”

Sillig (1851), von Jan (1854), and Detlefsen (1866): “haec regio est ex adverso Bactrianorum, deinde cuius oppidum Alexandria a conditore dictum.”

Mayhoff (1906): “haec regio est ex adverso Bactriae, Ariorum deinde cuius oppidum Alexandria a conditore dictum.”

Rackham (1938): “haec regio est ex adverso Bactriae; Arianorum deinde cuius oppidum Alexandria a conditore dictum.” Semi (1977): “haec regio est ex adverso Bactriae; Ariorum deinde cuius oppidum Alexandria, a conditore dictum.”

Brodersen (1996): “haec regio est ex adverso Bactriae, Ariorum deinde cuius oppidum Alexandria, a conditore dictum.”

These latter readings—following Mayhoff’s (1906) emendation—would refer to ALEXANDREIA in Aria.

ALEXANDREIA OF THE CAUCASUS

According to Arrian (3.28.4), after leaving PROPHTHASIA Alexander led his army to Mount Caucasus, where he founded a city he called Alexandreia.¹ Diodorus (17.83.1) adds that he founded the city in sixteen days in the pass that leads to Media (sic), calling it Alexandreia (παρελθὼν πλησίον τοῦ Καυκάσου κατεστρατοπέδευσεν, ὅ τινες Παροπάνισον ὄρος προσαγορεύουσι. τὸ δ᾽ὄρος τοῦτο κατὰ πλάτος διελθὼν ἐν ἡμέραις ἑκκαίδεκα πόλιν ἔκτισε κατὰ τὴν εἰσβολὴν τὴν φέρουσαν εἰς τὴν Μηδικήν, ἣν ὠνόμασεν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν).² Curtius Rufus (7.3.19–23) says that Alexander settled 7,000 natives along with retired soldiers. Diodorus adds (17.83.2) that at a day’s march from Alexandreia the Macedonian king founded “other cities” (ὁ δ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ ἄλλας πόλεις ἔκτισεν, ἡμέρας ὁδὸν ἀπεχούσας τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας) in which he settled 7,000 natives and 3,000 time-expired soldiers.³ There is no other indication where these settlements were. The following spring Alexander returned to Alexandreia; he now dismissed the hyparch he had placed in charge of the city and appointed in his stead Nikanor, a Companion. At the same time he also settled additional natives and retired soldiers (Arr. 4.22.4–5).⁴ We do not know the (official) name of the city.⁵ There are possible references to Alexandreia of the Caucasus in the Milindapanha and the Mahavamsa.⁶ R. Audoin and P. Bernard have suggested that Agathokles minted silver coinage here.⁷

Pliny (NH 6.62) says the settlement was located at foot of the Caucasus (“sub ipso Caucaso”), as does Curtius (7.3.23, “in radicibus montis”). Alexandreia of the Caucasus was probably located south of the Hindu Kush in the region between the modern Charikar and Begram and the junction of the Ghorband and Panjshir rivers. However, the exact location has not yet been identified.⁸

*    *    *    *

In general see Wilson, Ariana 179–83; Lassen, Ind. Alter. 2:129–30; Droysen, Hist. 2:677–78; F. Spiegel, Eran. Alter. 2:543 n. 1; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Alexandreia 6”; Cunningham, Geography 18, 31–33; Tcherikover, HS 103–4; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:293; Tarn, GBI² 96–98, 460–62; id., Alexander 2:236, 241, 246; Bosworth, Comment. 1:369–70; Bernard, JS (1982) 217–42; Goukowsky, Essai 1:158–59, 215–17; id. in Mélanges Lévêque 2:245–66; Orth, Diadochenzeit 108; Fraser, Cities 73, 140–50; Briant, OCD³ s.v. “Alexandreia 6”; Mairs, Hellenistic Far East 35.

1. On the tendency of the ancients to confuse the Caucasus with the Hindu Kush see, for example, Arr. 5.3.1–4; Strabo 11.5.5.

Plutarch (De Fort. Alex. 328F) also mentions a “Greek city” founded by Alexander in the Caucasus; presumably this refers to Alexandreia of the Caucasus.

2. P. Goukowsky (Diodore 236–37; Essai 1:158–59, 215–17; id. in Mélanges Lêvêque 245–66) claimed that at Diodorus 17.83.1 and Curtius 7.3.19–23 the reference is not to Alexandreia of the Caucasus but rather to ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana. Briefly, he argued as follows: according to Diodorus and Curtius, Alexander founded Alexandreia after having crossed the Caucasus. Goukowsky suggested emending the text of Diodorus from κατὰ τὴν εἰσβολὴν τὴν φέρουσαν εἰς τὴν Μηδικήν to κατὰ τὴν ἐκβολὴν τὴν φερομένην εἰς τὴν Μηδικήν (Budé ed.). We should therefore search for this settlement in Bactria (and not confuse it with Alexandreia of the Caucasus [Arr. 3.28.4, 7.3.23; Strabo 15.2.10; Pliny NH 6.21], which, Goukowsky acknowledged, is usually located at/near Begram). Now, according to the Metz Epitome (4) Alexander “pervenit ad oppidum Tarmantidem, quod est positum in flumine Medorum.” Goukowsky thus suggested that (a) the “River of the Medes” was the Amu Darya, i.e., the Oxus; (b) the Alexandreia mentioned by Diodorus and Curtius was identical with the “oppidum Tarmantidem” mentioned by the Metz Epitome (Epitoma rerum gestarum Alexandri); and (c) the latter was probably Termez, where Tarn located Ptolemy’s ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana (Goukowsky followed Tarn’s identification of Alexandreia Oxeiana with Termez [GBI² 118–19; id., JHS 60 (1940) 89–91; id., Alexander 2:235] but rejected the suggestion that it was also renamed Demetrias; see further ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana and ANTIOCH Tharmata in India; and contra: Rapin in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 152–53 and n. 40).

P. Bernard (JS [1982] 217–42; see also Fraser, Cities 141 n. 69, 154 and n. 97) argued strongly against Goukowsky’s reconstruction, in particular his claim that at 17.83.1 Diodorus refers to Alexandreia Oxeiana and that Alexandreia Oxeiana was located at Termez. Among other things Bernard focused on (a) the site of this Alexandreia relative to the Hindu Kush and (b) the reading Μηδική in Diodorus. He argued that Diodorus and Curtius (and the Metz Epitome) erred in locating this Alexandreia north of the Hindu Kush, i.e., in placing the foundation of this settlement after the crossing of the Hindu Kush (see also Brunt, Arrian 1:503). In fact, Bernard claimed, the sequence was just the reverse: after the founding of this Alexandreia at Begram, i.e., south of the Hindu Kush, the Macedonian king marched to Bactria. Bernard also claimed (JS [1982] 235) that the “violentes déformations” to which toponyms were subjected in the Metz Epitome (the example he gave was “Remaxii” for “Arimaspi”) rendered the identification of Tarmantis-Tarmantidis with Tarmita/Termez less secure. (He also noted that P. H. Thomas, in his edition of the Epitome, had suggested emending the text from “ad oppidum Tarmantidem” to “ad oppidum Paropanisadarum”; this emendation would, of course, provide an allusion to the province of Parapamisadai, where Alexandreia of the Caucasus was [presumably] located.) Finally, Bernard accepted J. J. Reiske’s emendation (made in 1757) of Μηδικήν to Ἰνδικήν in Diodorus’s text (JS [1982] 222–27) and noted that by virtue of its position Alexandreia was “véritablement la porte de l’Inde” (227). Finally, we may note Fraser’s sober observation regarding the text of Diodorus 17.83.2 (see also below, n. 3): “Nobody can assess the extent of error that may lie behind Diodorus” (Cities, 141 n. 69). See also Leriche and Pidaev, Termez 31–33: “Jusqu’ici, aucune trace matérielle ne permet de supposer que Termez ait pu être cette Alexandrie de l’Oxus” (but see 33 n. 1: “Ceci est le point de vue de l’un des auteurs, l’autre restant fidèle à l’identification de Termez-Alexandrie de l’Oxus”; and ANTIOCH THARMATA, n. 2).

3. MS F of Diodorus has the singular (ἄλλην πόλιν . . . ἀπέχουσαν); but, as Welles observed (n. 1 to Loeb edition of Diodorus 17.83.2), immediately below we find the plural ταύτας (see also Droysen, Hist. 2:678–79; Tcherikover, HS 104). Ghirshman (Bégram 9 n. 3) followed the reading ἄλλην πόλιν and suggested this “other polis” was located 30 km (?) south of Begram in the area east of Saraï Khwaja at Eskanderia/Tepe Sikandar (for the location of Saraï Khwaja see map 2 on p. 228 in Bernard, JS [1982]). Furthermore, Ghirshman suggested it was also the site of Ortospana (“Ceci expliquerait peut-être, pourquoi le site que nous proposons d’identifier avec Ortospana, porte aujourd’hui le nom d’Eskanderia ou Alexandrie”; for Ortospana see Strabo 11.8.9, 15.2.8; Pliny NH 6.61; Amm. Marc. 23.6.70; and Rapin in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 162; the location of Ortospana is not definitely known; for example, Tarn [GBI² 471] located it at Kabul, and Fraser [Cities 121 n. 32, 141–44, esp. 142] placed it in the area of Bamiyan; in general see Stein, RE s.v.”Ortospana”). However, Bernard objected (JS [1982] 242 n. 69) that (a) the earliest archaeological remains discovered at the site date from the sixth century A.D. (see also Gazetteer Afghanistan s.v. “Tepe Skandar”) and (b) the modern toponym may be a “création tardive” by the local population (Bernard noted that the toponym “Tepe Sikandar” is first mentioned by Ghirshman, who worked at Begram in 1941 and 1942, and that in 1925 Masson and Foucher referred to the site as Qala-i Rajput; see also Ball, Monuments of Afghanistan 271).

4. The hyparch whom Alexander dismissed is not identified by Arrian. Berve (Alexanderreich 2:272–73, no. 545; see also Heckel, Who’s Who 174) suggested it was Neiloxenos, whom Alexander had appointed supervisor for the Persian satrap, Proexes (Arr. 3.28.4). However, Bosworth objected (Comment. 2:145) that Neiloxenos appears to have been a regional military commander, whereas Arrian suggests that the deposed hyparch was responsible only for the new settlement. On Nikanor see Berve, Alexanderreich 2:275–76, no. 556; and Heckel, Who’s Who 177, “Nicanor [6].”

5. At two places Arrian identifies this Alexandreia by reference to the mountainous region where it was located. Thus, at one point he says (3.28.4) Alexander πρὸς τὸν Καύκασον τὸ ὄρος ἦγεν, ἵνα καὶ πόλιν ἔκτισε καὶ ὠνόμασεν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν; at another (4.22.4) he says the Macedonian king ἀφίκετο εἰς Ἀλεξάνδρειαν πόλιν τὴν κτισθεῖσαν ἐν Παραπαμισάδαις. Neither reference, however, can be construed as the name of the settlement. Bosworth remarked (Comment. 2:145) that at 4.22.4 Arrian was using “the alternative nomenclature, based on the native name for the area, Parapamisadae” (for the spelling “Parapamisadai” in Arrian see also Ind. 5.11; and Ta Meta Alex. in FGrH 156 F9.36). See also Diod. 17.83.1; Pliny NH 6.62; and Curtius 7.3.23, quoted above.

Stephanos (s.v. “Alexandreia”) mentions two Alexandreias that are relevant to the discussion: no. 5, ἐν τῇ Ὠπιανῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἰνδικήν, and no. 17, ἐν τῇ Σογδιανῇ παρὰ Παροπαμισάδαις. Tarn (Alexander 2:241) suggested that no. 5 was Alexandreia of the Caucasus (see also Bernard, JS [1982] 232), and no. 17 was ALEXANDREIA on the Oxus in Sogdiana (Oxeiana). Fraser (Cities 149) remarked that “Stephanos’ list of Alexandreias shows some signs of confusion in the Asiatic items, and the presence of both Ἀλεξάνδρεια ἐν ᾽Ωπιανῆι and (as no. 17) Ἀλεξάνδρεια ἐν Παροπαμισάδαις may have arisen from a failure to identify the two cities.” He then tentatively suggested (149–50) the possible identification of Alexandreia in the Parapamisadai (possibly an earlier name) with Alexandreia in Opiane; in the table on p. 240 he lists as no. 6 “Α. ἐν Παροπανισάδαις ( = πρὸς τῶι Καυκάσωι).”

In any event, it is useful to bear in mind that the toponym Alexandreia of the Caucasus, though widely used by modern scholars, is nowhere directly attested in the extant sources.

6. The Milindapanha or Questions of Milinda is a dialogue on Buddhism between Milinda (undoubtedly the king Menander) and a Buddhist sage, Nagasena, that dates to c. 100 B.C. It exists in a Pali version (complete) and a Chinese translation (partial). The work has two parts. The first—comprising the first three books—is dated to soon after Menander’s death; the second part—the remaining books—is later. For possible references to Alexandreia of the Caucasus in the Milindapanha: (a) Menander was born in the village of Kalasi, which was near Alasanda, i.e., Alexandreia of the Caucasus (see the English translation of the Pali version by R. Davids, The Questions of King Milinda, pt. 1, Sacred Books of the East 35 [Oxford, 1890] 127; see also A. Foucher, JA [1929] 175–76; and O. Bopearachchi, St. Iran. 19 [1990] 43–44). (b) An Alexandreia is included in a list of places in India (“Kotumbara, Mathura, Alexandria, Kashmir, Gandhara”; Davids, The Questions of King Milinda, pt. 2, Sacred Books of the East 36 [Oxford, 1894] 211, 269). See further, Tarn (GBI² 415–21, esp. 421 and n. 4), who argued that the references are to Alexandreia of the Caucasus rather than to ALEXANDREIA near Egypt (so, for example, P. Pelliot, JA [1914] 413–17); see also Ghirshman, Bégram 6–7; Narain, Indo-Greeks 74 (103). The Pali epic Mahavamsa from Sri Lanka (fifth-sixth century A.D.) mentions “Alasanda, the city of the Yonas” (XXIX). This is also a possible reference to Alexandreia of the Caucasus; see further Droysen, Hist. 2:677; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Alexandreia 6.”

In addition, Tarn, noting that Alexandreia of the Caucasus was “at or about the junction of the Panjshir and Ghorband rivers,” has suggested (Alexander 2:246) that in the Syriac version of the Alexander Romance Alexandreia “which is upon the farther bank of the rivers in the country of the Indians” (3.24, trans. Wallis Budge, p. 143) refers to Alexandreia of the Caucasus.

In general on Menander see Bopearachchi, St. Iran. 19 (1990) 39–66.

7. R. Audoin and P. Bernard, RN (1974) 30–31.

8. Location. The early suggestion that Alexandreia of the Caucasus was located at or near Bamiyan was long ago rejected; see, for example, Wilson, Ariana 179–81; and Spiegel, Eran. Alter. 2:543 n. 1. For the suggested location of Alexandreia of the Caucasus at or in the vicinity of Begram see, for example, C. Masson, JASB (1836) 6–8, 537, followed, for example, by Droysen, Hist. 2:677; Tarn, Alexander 2:246 (see above, n. 6); Brunt, Arrian 1:503; Bernard, JS (1982) 237–42; Fraser, Cities 146–50; Bosworth, Comment. 1:370 (“the vicinity of Begram, at the confluence of the rivers Gorband and Panjshîr. Traces of a fortress have been discovered at the confluence itself [the mound of Borj-i Abdullah] and there are Hellenistic remains immediately to the south”); see map 4 in Ghirshman, Bégram 6; and map 2 in Bernard, JS (1982) 228.

On Borj-i Abdullah, which was c. 600 m north of Begram, see Ghirshman, Bégram 1–5 and plan, p. 2. On Begram and the results of the excavation there see J. Hackin and J. R . Hackin, Recherches archéologiques à Begram (Paris, 1939); J. Hackin, Nouvelles recherches archéologiques à Begram (ancienne Kâpicî) (Paris, 1954); Ghirshman, Bégram, plan of the site, pl. 24; J. Hackin, J. Carl, and J. Meunié, Diverses recherches archéologiques en Afghanistan (1933–1940) (Paris, 1959) 83–113; MacDowell and Taddei in Archaeology of Afghanistan 257–62; Gazetteer Afghanistan s.v. “Begram”; Mehendale and Cambon in Afghanistan 131–210; map 2 in Bernard, JS (1982) 228; Ball, Monuments of Afghanistan 174–75.

For the suggested location of Alexandreia of the Caucasus at the site of Parwan see, for example, A. Foucher (CRAI [1939] 437–39; CRAI [1941] 551; Vieille Route 2:203); Hackin (Recherches archéologiques à Begram 4 and map on p. 5). Following Foucher, Ghirshman (Bégram 6 and map; see also map 2 in Bernard, JS [1982] 228) believed that it was located either at (Ghirshman) or near (Hackin) Parwan (the modern Jebel Saraji). Foucher also suggested that Begram was the site of Kapisa (Pliny NH 6.92; Solinus 54.2, ed. Mommsen; Ptol. 6.18.4, “Katisa”; on Kapisa see Foucher in Études asiatiques 1:266–73; see also Rapin in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 162). According to the Milindapanha (pt. 1, p. 127; trans. R. Davids; see above, n. 6) Menander was born in the village of Kalasi. Foucher (BSOS 6 [1930] 344; Vieille Route 2:212) suggested this was, in fact, Kapisa. Both Tarn (GBI² 420) and Bernard (St. Iran. 3 [1974] 178 n. 21; JS [1982] 240–41) correctly rejected this emendation. Bernard objected that at both (H)Opian and Parwan the archaeological remains were too inconsequential to justify identifying the sites with Alexandreia, and suggested that Alexandreia and Kapisa were one and the same towns, located at the site of Begram.

In the first edition of Greeks in Bactria and India (97–98, 460) Tarn speculated that the native Kapisa on the east bank of the Panjshir-Ghorband rivers and Alexandreia of the Caucasus on the west bank were united in a double city, Alexandreia Kapisa. In the addenda to the second edition (540) he abandoned this claim pending the publication of the results of the French excavation at Begram.

On the other hand, Cunningham (Geography 25–26), Tarn (GBI² 96–98, 460–61), and Bernard (JS [1982] 232, 240) pointed to Stephanos, s.v. “Alexandreia 5” (ἐν τῇ Ὠπιανῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἰνδικήν), noted the presence of the village of (H)Opian north of Charikar, and suggested Alexandreia of the Caucasus was in the district of Opiane, the name of which will have been preserved in the modern village. In Alexander 2:241 Tarn equated Alexandreia in Opiane with Alexandreia of the Caucasus. Fraser pointed out (Cities 148–49) that the name “Opiane” is not attested elsewhere in the ancient literature (though see Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F299, mentioned by Fraser, Cities 148 n. 84; see also Stein, RE s.vv. “Opiai” and “Opiane”). In the seventh century A.D. the Chinese pilgrim Hsüan-Tsang (see Beal [trans.], Buddhist Records 2:285; cf. 1:55 n. 198; Watters [trans.], Yuan Chwang’s Travel 2:266; see also Fraser, Cities 234) referred to U-pi-na (Hupian) as the capital of the area around Kapisa. (On the Afghan section of the itinerary of Hsüan-Tsang see Foucher in Études asiatiques 1:257–84.) In any event, the similarity of a modern toponym to an ancient one is insufficient grounds—in the absence of other supporting evidence—for affirming the existence of the ancient settlement. Fraser’s observation (149) that “there seems, then, no decisive reason to prefer H(O)pian to Begram as the most probable site for Alexander’s city” is a reasonable assessment of the status quaestionis.

Finally, Bevan suggested that Alexandreia of the Caucasus was located at Charikar (CHI 1:348), and, earlier, Wilson had suggested either Ghazni or Kandahar (Ariana 179).

We may summarize some of the various possibilities in tabular form.

TABLE 7.1

ALEXANDREIA ON THE TANAIS

See ALEXANDREIA Eschate.

ALEXANDREIA OXEIANA

Ptolemy (6.12.6) is our sole extant source for Alexandreia Oxeiana in Sogdiana. The identification of Alexandreia Oxeiana—if, in fact, it existed—remains problematic. It has variously been suggested it was (a) identical with ALEXANDREIA near Baktra,¹ (b) AÏ KHANOUM, (c) Termez,² (d) Alexandreia in Sogdiana (Stephanos, s.v. “Alexandreia 17”),³ or (e) the settlement unearthed at Kamp yr Tepe.⁴

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:679, 680; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Alexandreia 4”; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:294; Tcherikover, HS 105–6; Tarn, GBI² 118–19; id., JHS 60 (1940) 89–91; id., Alexander 2:235; Bernard in Géographie 3–5; Orth, Diadochenzeit 109; Fraser, Cities 153–56.

1. For the suggested identification of ALEXANDREIA near Baktra with Alexandreia Oxeiana see Fraser, Cities 153–54.

2. For the possible identification of Alexandreia Oxeiana with AÏ KHANOUM see that entry. For the possibility that Termez might have been the site of Alexandreia Oxeiana see the discussion of Bernard in Géographie 4–5. Bernard hesitated between Termez and Aï Khanoum but ultimately opted for the latter; see AÏ KHANOUM, n. 6; ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus, n. 2. See also Leriche and Pidaev, Termez 33 and n. 1; and ANTIOCH THARMATA, n. 2.

3. For the possible identification of Ptolemy’s Alexandreia Oxeiana with Stephanos’s Alexandreia in Sogdiana see Tarn, GBI² 118–19; id., JHS 60 [1940] 89–91; id., Alexander 2:235. Tarn claimed that Alexandreia Oxeiana in Sogdiana was located on the north bank of the Oxus. He also said: “There can be no reasonable doubt that it stood at Tarmita . . . now Termez . . . , for it could not have stood anywhere else.” For the earlier identification of Tarmita with Termez see ANTIOCH THARMATA, n. 2. As for Tarmita, Tarn also claimed it came from a Tibetan translation of a lost Sanskrit work: “The original mentions a town Dharmamitra (Demetrias) and the translator says that the name was the origin of Tarmita on the Paksu (Oxus)” (JHS 60 [1940] 89 n. 2). Tarn claimed that “the Alexandria there was destroyed when Alexandria-Merv was destroyed; it was refounded by Antiochus I as Antioch Tarmata or Tharmata [Tarn’s reference is to the Tab. Peut. X1.5 and Rav. Geog. (ed. Schnetz) II.1.14–15: (14) “Antiochia,” (15) “Tarmata”] at the same time as Antioch-Merv and subsequently refounded by Demetrius of Bactria as a Demetrias; the native name, as was usual, finally came back again, medieval Termedh, modern Termez” (Alexander 2:235). Tarn further suggested that this Alexandreia was identical with “Alexandreia 17, in Sogdiana παρὰ Παροπαμισάδαις,” recorded by Stephanos. In short, according to Tarn’s original reconstruction we would have the following sequence of toponyms: Tarmita -> Alexandreia -> Antioch -> Demetrias -> Termez. Nota bene, however, that Tarn’s reconstruction has been “decisively rejected by orientalists” (Fraser, Cities 154; see the convincing refutation of Narain, Indo-Greeks 40–41 [ = Indo-Greeks rpt., 48–49], following R. B. Whitehead, NC [1947] 35; id., NC [1950] 213–14; and H. W. Bailey, BSOAS 13 [1950] 400–403, who demonstrated that Dharmamitra was the name of the author of the commentary, not of the city of Tarmita; this was subsequently accepted by Tarn [GBI² 525]: “that Tarmita later became Demetrias . . . is . . . a mistake”; see also ANTIOCH Tharmata in India, n. 2).

For P. Goukowsky’s suggestion that Diodorus 17.83.1 refers to Alexandreia Oxeiana and that the settlement was located at Termez, and the refutation by Bernard and Fraser, see ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus, n. 2. For the suggested identification of Termez with Alexandreia Oxeiana see also Pidaev in La Bactriane 54.

4. For the suggested identification of Alexandreia Oxeiana with the settlement discovered at KAMPYR TEPE see that entry, n. 10; and Leriche in After Alexander 133.

ALEXANDRESCHATA IN SCYTHIA

For Alexandreschata in Scythia (App. Syr. 57) see ALEXANDREIA Eschate.

ANTIOCH

See ANTIOCH Tharmata in India, n. 2.

ARIGAION

According to Arrian (4.24.6, 25.5), in 327/6 B.C. Alexander descended on a city called Arigaion and captured it after its inhabitants had set it on fire and fled.¹ Because of its favorable position the king then ordered Krateros to strengthen the city with a wall and to settle in it neighboring peoples who volunteered, as well as retired soldiers.² The exact location is not known; the commonly held opinion is that it was located at the modern town of Nawagai.³

*    *    *    *

In general see Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Arigaion”; Tcherikover, HS 107; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:296; Caroe, Pathans 50–51; Bosworth, Comment. 2:163; Fraser, Cities 69, 159, 187.

1. For another reference to Arigaion see Itinerarium Alexandri 105 (ed. Hausmann). At 8.10.19 the text of Curtius reads “Acadira.” In his note to the Loeb edition Rolfe remarked: “Otherwise unknown: cf. Arr. iv.33.5 (sic; the correct reference is 4.23.5) Ἄνδακα”; Bosworth (Comment. 2:163) said Acadira was “clearly the same place” as Arigaion and (Comment. 2:158) that the city mentioned at Arrian 4.23.5 “is not named elsewhere and cannot be identified.”

2. Bosworth (Comment. 2:163) noted that “the voluntary nature of the settlement is as suspect here as in the earlier foundation [i.e., ALEXANDREIA Eschate]. It is not impossible that some of the neighbours of Arigaeum were willing to take advantage of generous allocations of land and settled on privileged terms, but the tradition of Alexander’s conquest suggests that there was a general flight from the path of the invasion and few who threw in their lot willingly with the new order. The majority of the local settlers (like the Hellenic population) were pressed men, prisoners of war assigned to the rural work-force of the new foundation.”

3. For the possible location of Arigaion at Nawagai (north of Peshawar at the Pakistani/Afghan frontier) see, for example, Holdich, Gates of India 103; Foucher, Vieille Route 207 (map); and Bosworth, Comment. 2: map 4.

ARTAKOANA/ARTAKAENA

See ALEXANDREIA in Aria and HEKATOMPYLOS.

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:750–51; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Artakoana”; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:293; Tcherikover, HS 102; Schachermeyr, Alexander 314; Bosworth, Comment. 1:356–57; Holt, Thundering Zeus 27.

DEMETRIAS IN ARACHOSIA

In his description of Arachosia, Isidore of Charax (19) mentions: “the city of Chorochoad and the city of Demetrias; then Alexandropolis, the metropolis of Arachosia . . . and by it flows the river Arachotus” (modern Arghandab; trans. Schoff). It is generally agreed that the founder was Demetrios I Kallinikos.¹ Tomaschek suggested that Demetrias was located west of Kandahar.²

*    *    *    *

In general see Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Demetrias 5”; Tcherikover, HS 103; Tarn, GBI² 93–94; MacDowell in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 197–206; P. Bernard, JS (2004) 275; Fraser, Terminology 352.

1. On Demetrios I as founder see, for example, Tarn, GBI² 93–94; Narain, CAH² 8:399; Bernard, JS (2004) 275; Fraser, Terminology 352.

2. For the suggested location see Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Demetrias 5”; and map in Fraser, Cities 238. Note, however, that Bernard (JS [2004] 275) remarked that “le site n’a pas été localisé”; and Fraser (Terminology 352) considered its location “uncertain.”

DEMETRIAS IN SOGDIANA

See ALEXANDREIA OXEIANA and EUKRATIDEIA.

EUKRATIDEIA

Strabo (11.11.2), followed by Stephanos (s.v. “Eukratidia”), mentioned Eukratideia. Stephanos described it as a πόλις Βάκτρων, and Strabo noted that it bore the name of its ruler (τοἄ ἄρξαντος ἐπώνυμος).¹ This was certainly Eukratides, who ruled c. 170–145 B.C. (Justin 41.6.1–5; Strabo 15.1.3). The settlement is also recorded by Ptolemy (6.11.8). The precise location is not known. Based on the coordinates given by Ptolemy, Kiessling suggested Eukratideia was located c. 102 kilometers west of Baktra (Balkh) in the region of Shibarghan.² W. W. Tarn suggested that Eukratideia might be identified with DEMETRIAS in Sogdiana or was simply a later foundation, built by Heliokles; P. Bernard speculated that it was a later name for the settlement at AÏ KHANOUM.³

*    *    *    *

In general see Kiessling, RE s.v. “Eukratideia”; Tcherikover, HS 104–5; Tarn, GBI² 208–9; Fraser, Terminology 352–53.

1. The identification and family background of Eukratides is much disputed; see, for example, Tarn, GBI² 195–224, especially 196–97; Narain, Indo-Greeks 53–58 et passim; id., CAH² 8:401; Mørkholm, Antiochus 172–75; Holt, OCD³ s.v. “Eucratides I.”

For the coinage of Eukratides see, for example, Gardner, BMC Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India 13–19; Narain, Coin Types 9–12; Le Rider, Suse 333, 345; Mørkholm, Antiochus 173–74; Holt, Thundering Zeus 72–73.

2. On Shibarghan see Gazetteer Afghanistan s.v. “Shibarghan.”

3. Tarn (GBI² 208–9) tentatively suggested that Eukratideia might have been the refounded Demetrias on the Oxus (Tarn pointed the reader to p. 118, where he apparently referred to the settlement as “Demetrias in Sogdiana”). This is unlikely for two reasons: (a) as Tarn himself noted, Ptolemy includes Eukratideia among the cities not on the Oxus, and (b) in any event, the existence of this particular Demetrias has been convincingly attacked; see further ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana (accepted by Tarn in an addendum to GBI² 525). Alternatively, Tarn suggested that Eukratideia was simply a later foundation, built by Heliokles. Bernard speculated that Eukratideia might have been a later renaming of the settlement at AÏ KHANOUM (see the latter entry, n. 29). Finally, Fraser remarked that “the magnificent and abundant coinage of its mint notwithstanding, the location of this, the capital city of the Bactrian Empire is unknown” (Terminology 352).

HERAKLEIA/ACHAIS (ACHAIA)

There appears to be confusion—and possible errors—in the extant evidence regarding Herakleia, Achais, and Achaia. In the present state of the evidence, certainty is quite unattainable. The most that one can do, therefore, is set out the sources and various possible solutions.

We learn about Herakleia/Achais in Aria from Pliny and Solinus. According to Pliny (NH 6.48), who was apparently discussing the Transcaspian region, Herakleia was founded by Alexander; subsequently it was destroyed and rebuilt by Antiochos, who renamed it Achais (“oppidum Heraclea ab Alexandro conditum, quod deinde subversum ac restitutum Antiochus Achaida appellavit”).¹ Solinus (48, ed. Mommsen), who derived much of his information from Pliny, gives essentially the same information as Pliny about Herakleia/Achais except that he appears to locate it in the Caspian region (“et aliud in Caspiis Alexander oppidum excitarat idque Heraclea dictum dum manebat; sed hoc quoque ab iisdem eversum gentibus, deinde ab Antiocho restitutum, ut ille maluit, Achais postmodum nominatum est”). Although Pliny and Solinus apparently differ on the location of Achais, the fact that they record essentially the same history indicates they are undoubtedly talking about the same city.

As for Achaia in Aria, Strabo (11.10.1) specifically says it (as well as ARTAKOANA/ARTAKAENA and ALEXANDREIA) was named for its founder (ἐπώνυμοι τῶν κτισάντων). In contrast, Pliny and Solinus say that after Herakleia was destroyed it was rebuilt by Antiochos, who then named it Achais—that is, he named it for someone else. If the information in Strabo and Pliny/Solinus is correct, we then would have two distinct traditions regarding the founding and, presumably, two distinct towns: (a) Achaia, which was named for its founder, and (b) Achais, which was named by its founder for someone else. Finally, Appian (Syr. 57) records an ACHAIA in Parthia among the foundations of Seleukos I Nikator, and Strabo (11.9.1), Ammianus (23.6.39), and Ptolemy (6.2.16) record a HERAKLEIA in southeastern Media/Parthia.²

We may set out the information available to us about Herakleia, Achais, and Achaia in tabular form as below (see Table 7.2, opposite on p. 275).

We do not know the exact location of Herakleia/Achais.³

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2:670–71, 749, 3:344–45; Niese, GMS 2:92; Kiessling, RE s.v. “Herakleia 22”; Tomaschek, RE s.vv. “Achaia 9,” “Achais”; Tcherikover, HS 102; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:292; André and Filliozat, Pline VI.2 63–64; Brodersen, Komment. 160–61; Hakkert, LGRC s.v. “Achais 1 & 2”; Holt, Thundering Zeus 27 and n. 16.

TABLE 7.2

1. On the difficulties relating to Pliny NH 6.46–48 see Kiessling, RE s.v. “Herakleia 22.”

2. Two questions: (a) Is the Achais mentioned by Pliny and Solinus to be identified with Achaia? (b) Are the Achaias mentioned by Appian and Strabo identical or not? I.e., since Appian locates Achaia in Parthia, and Strabo locates it in Aria, are they referring to different cities, or has one of them erred? If the latter case, who? To these questions Tarn answered as follows (GBI² 15 and nn. 1 and 2): Achaia and Achais referred to one and the same city. Furthermore, the adjectival form “Achais” meant Herakleia “the Achaian”—that is, the population of the town included a large number of these people among the settlers. Finally, Tarn dismissed as a “mistake” Strabo’s inclusion of Achaia in the list of cities bearing the name of their founder (11.10.1). We should, however, separate two claims made by Strabo: (a) there was an Achaia in Aria, and (b) it was named for its founder. Even assuming the latter piece of information is incorrect it is still quite conceivable that there was an Achaia in Aria.

Tcherikover (HS 102) identified the Achaia in Aria recorded by Strabo and Pliny with the Achaia in Parthia mentioned by Appian (see also, Kiessling, RE s.v. “Herakleia 22”). He also commented that Appian’s ascription of Achaia in Parthia to Seleukos Nikator was false because Achaios, who gave his name to the city, was a relative of Antiochos I (an Achaios is also mentioned in an inscription dated to 267 B.C. from Denizli near Izmir; see M. Wörrle, Chiron 5 [1975] 59–87; see also D. Musti in CAH² 7:195–96 [“a high Seleucid functionary”] and Holt, Thundering Zeus 28 n. 16). As a result he considered this to be a foundation of the latter king. Cf. André and Filliozat (Pline VI.2 63–64), who objected—correctly—that Tcherikover was confusing Herakleia/Achais with Achaia in Aria.

Bevan (Seleucus 1:269) suggested the founder of Achaia in Aria was “no doubt the general and father-in-law of Seleucus II, or an elder Achaeus of the same family.”

3. Location. Kiessling (RE s.v. “Herakleia 22”) suggested that Herakleia was located either on the Oxus River or in the mountainous area between northwest Media and Baktria. André and Filliozat (Pline VI.2 63) cited Solinus (as well as Strabo 11.9.1 and Amm. Marc. 23.6.39) to support their claim that this Herakleia was located at the entrance to the Caspian Gates at the foot of Mount Damavand.

IASONION

Ammianus (23.6.54) mentions three prominent cities in Margiana—Iasonion, ANTIOCH, and NISAIA/NIGAIA; Ptolemy (6.10.3) also refers to Iasonion. It is not clear whether Iasonion and Nisaia were Hellenistic foundations. The location is not definitely known.¹

*    *    *    *

In general see Weissbach, RE s.v. “Iasonion”; Tcherikover, HS 105; Fontaine, Ammien XXIII-XXV 2:101; den Boeft et al., Comment. on Ammianus XXIII 191.

1. Location. Iasonion was probably located somewhere north of the modern Herat. Weissbach (RE s.v. “Iasonion”) believed it was at the site of Ak Tepe, near the point where the Kushk flows into the Murgab (ancient Margus) River; F. Hiebert, P. L. Kohl, and St. J. Simpson suggested Yarim Tepe (Barrington Atlas 2:1361). C. Rapin has suggested that “avant l’époque hellénistique le site de Merv/Erk-kala pourrait avoir porté le nom de Iasonion” (in Afghanistan ancien carrefour 147 n. 20; BAI 12 [1998] 214 and 215 [map]).

See map at the end of Ammien XXIII-XXV 2^e partie; and map 98 in the Barrington Atlas.

KADRUSIA/UM

According to Pliny (NH 6.92) there was “ad Caucasum Cadrusi, oppidum ab Alexandro conditum.” Solinus (54, ed. Mommsen) gave essentially the same information with slightly different wording: “Cadrusiam/ um oppidum ab Alexandro Magno ad Caucasum constitutum est, ibi et Alexandria.”¹ Thus, both Pliny and Solinus located the settlement close to the Caucasus; the latter added that it was near Alexandreia. We do not know the exact location.² Tcherikover understood this to mean there was a city called “Kadrusi” in the area.³ In fact Kadrusi probably referred to the people; the name of the settlement would probably have been Kadrusia or Kadrusium.⁴

*    *    *    *

In general, see Kiessling, RE s.v. “Gedrosia”; Tomaschek, RE s.v. “Cadrusi”; Cunningham, Geography 36–37; Marquart, Eranshahr 242; Tcherikover, HS 104; Tarn, GBI² 99 n. 6; Ghirshman, Bégram 7 and n. 3; André and Filliozat, Pline VI.2 122.

1. Regarding the name of the settlement in Solinus’s text: the MSS of Solinus have Cadrusia and Cadrusiam. Mommsen suggested the reading Cadrusium.

2. Location. Kiessling speculated (RE s.v. “Gedrosia” 902) that it was located in the Hindu Kush. Cunningham (Geography 36 and map III opp. p. 19) suggested identifying the settlement with the old site of Koratas, on the north bank of the Panjshir River, 10 km northeast of Begram.

3. Tcherikover also commented that Pliny might have been referring to the city mentioned by Diodorus; apparently he was thinking of Diodorus 17.83.2: ὁ δ Ἀ̓ λέξανδρος καὶ ἄλλας πόλεις (cf. the alternative reading in MS F: ἄλλην πόλιν, . . . ἀπέχουσαν) ἔκτισεν, ἡμέρας ὁδὸν ἀπεχούσας τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας. On this passage see ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus.

4. Tarn objected (GBI² 99 n. 6) that Pliny NH 6.92 “has been much misunderstood and Cadrusi has been called a city (Tcherikover, HS 104; Kiessling, RE s.v. “Gedrosia” 902). Certainly there were town-names in India ending in -i, which Greeks sometimes transliterated by iota and sometimes by eta. But had Pliny meant a town, he would have written, as he regularly does, oppidum Cadrusi, and on his usage the meaning is clear enough: ‘the Cadrusi (and among them) a city founded by Alexander’. The Cadrusi are otherwise unknown.” Tarn’s cautionary note about the Kadrusi is well taken (followed by Ghirshman, Bégram 7 and n. 3 [who nevertheless noted that the text of Pliny is “actuellement inintelligible”]; see, earlier, Vaux, Dict. Geog. s.v. “Cadrusi,” who observed that Cadrusi referred to a district and that Solinus had apparently misunderstood Pliny’s words and had “inferred that there was a city there called Cadrusia; for which, however, there is no authority”). On the other hand, he did not mention the Solinus passage. See also Marquart, Eranshahr 242; and André and Filliozat, Pline VI.2 122.

KAMPYR TEPE

The Persian historian Hafiz-i Abru (d. 1430 A.D.) said that near Termez there was a site called Pardagwi. At the time Hafiz-i Abru was writing, the site had fallen from its former prosperity; formerly, however, it had competed with Termez as a crossing place on the Oxus. According to the historian, it claimed to have been founded by Alexander the Great, though others asserted that it was in fact older than Termez. Hafiz-i Abru said that the toponym—given to it in the time of Alexander—represented the Greek for “guesthouse.” Based on this, V. Minorsky reasonably suggested that the original name was Pandocheion, “The Inn.”¹

Kampyr Tepe is located 30 kilometers west of Termez; it is set on a high terrace on the right bank of the Amu Darya (Oxus) River.² At the site there is a citadel dating from the Hellenistic period; unfortunately only part of the citadel (150 × 100 m) has survived; the rest collapsed into the Amu Darya.³ Fragmentary Greek graffiti as well as coins provide evidence for the presence of Greeks at Kampyr Tepe. Greek graffiti have been found on potsherds and the side of a large jar.⁴ One graffito on the exterior of a vessel has been read as “fifteen drachms” (I. Estremo Oriente 307). A second, on the inside of the rim of a vessel, refers to the liquid measure, “seven khoes” (I. Estremo Oriente 308).⁵ The third graffito (I. Estremo Oriente 309) was scratched on the side of a jar; the four letters on the jar—ΚΛ ΕΘ/Ω̣—have been variously read as the beginning of a personal name (according to V. Jaïlenko, cited by E. T. Rtveladze) or κλευών, that is, “prophecy,” “rumor,” or “fame” (according to Rtveladze).⁶ Among the three hundred coins thus far discovered, two were of Antiochos I and another eighteen were of various Graeco-Bactrian kings.⁷ A terra-cotta plaque of a heavily armored soldier equipped in Hellenistic fashion has been found at Kampyr Tepe. V. P. Nikonorov and S. A. Savchuk have dated the plaque to the midsecond century B.C.⁸ Finally, the first wall of the citadel was built, according to Rtveladze, “dans la pure tradition de la poliorcétique hellénistique.”⁹ The composite information suggests the possible presence of a Hellenistic settlement—a katoikia, as Rtveladze suggested—at Kampyr Tepe.

The suggested identification of Kampyr Tepe with Pandocheion is most attractive. But it is only a suggestion. Note that P. Leriche has suggested it could possibly be ALEXANDREIA Oxeiana.¹⁰

*    *    *    *

In general see V. Minorsky, Kara-Tepe (Moscow, 1969) 2:46–47; and P. Bernard, JS (1982) 236; Capdetrey, Pouvoir 80 and n. 183.

For the results of the excavation at Kampyr Tepe see E. T. Rtveladze, BAI 8 (1994) 141–55; id., RN (1995) 20–24; id., DA 247 (1999) 56–57; id., Aleksandr 46–53; Rtveladze, ed., Kampyr Tepe, 5 vols. [in Russian] (Tashkent, 2000–2006); Leriche in After Alexander 133; Leriche and Pidaev in After Alexander 181.

1. V. Minorsky, BSOAS 30 (1967) 45–53; id., Kara-Tepe 2:46–47; P. Bernard, JS (1982) 131 n. 14 and 236; Rtveladze, Aleksandr 46–49.

2. For the location of Kampyr Tepe see, for example, map in After Alexander 30; and map 98 in Barrington Atlas.

3. On the citadel see E. T. Rtveladze, BAI 8 (1994) 141–55; id., DA 247 (1999) 56–57; id. in Kampyr Tepe 1:7; Azimov in La Bactriane 235–40.

4. Rtveladze in Kampyr Tepe 1:17, 3:101–2; id., BAI 8 (1994) 147–49; id., RN (1995) 21–22 = SEG 45:1881 = I. Estremo Oriente 307–309 = IGIAC 150; Rapin in Aï Khanoum 8:390 (Κ Λ Ε Ω̣)̣. Cf. G. Rougemont in IGIAC p. 255

5. Cf. the inscriptions on vases found at AÏ KHANOUM , n . 17.

6. See above, n. 4.

7. For the coins see Rtveladze, BAI 8 (1994) 150; id. in Kampyr Tepe 1:17; Aiupova and Gorin in Kampyr Tepe 2:129–30.

8. V. P. Nikonorov and S. A. Savchuk, Iran 30 (1992) 49–54; see also N. Sekunda, Hellenistic Infantry Reform 173–74. Nikonorov and Savchuk noted that G. A. Pugachenkova, who first published the plaque (in Obshchestvennye nauki v Uzbekistane [Tashkent, 1989] 4:55–57), believed that a Roman soldier was depicted on it and dated it to the first half of the second century A.D. However, Nikonorov and Savchuk correctly pointed out that the plaque was found in a deposit above which were two layers, and above that, a coin of the Graeco-Bactrian king Eukratides (c. 170–145 B.C.). Hence, they suggested that the latest date for the plaque would be the period of the reign of Eukratides.

9. For the citadel wall see Rtveladze, DA 247 (1999) 56–57; id., BAI 8 (1994) 144; id. in Kampyr Tepe 1:7ff.; Azimov in La Bactriane 235–40.

10. For a plan of the site see, for example, Rtveladze in Kampyr Tepe 1:8–9. For the suggested identification of Kampyr Tepe with Alexandreia Oxeiana see, for example, Leriche in After Alexander 133.

MARAKANDA

According to Curtius Rufus (7.6.10), at the time when Alexander reached Marakanda (the modern Samarkand in the valley of Zarafshan River) it was enclosed by a wall of 70 stades, inside of which there was a citadel that was surrounded by another wall.¹ Arrian (3.30.6) referred to it as a “royal residence of the Sogdians’ land.”

Excavation at Afrasiab (the ancient site of Samarkand prior to the Mongol conquest) has revealed evidence for habitation before the Hellenistic period.² There is also evidence for habitation at the site during the Hellenistic period. Thus, the ceramic ware found in level II of Afrasiab (third–second centuries B.C.) shows similarities with that found at AÏ KHANOUM.³ Bricks have been found marked with Greek letters (α, β, ε, φ) in certain sections of the walls of the Hellenistic period.⁴ A bronze coin of Antiochos II has been discovered at Afrasiab; in addition, a coin of Seleukos I and two of Eukratides probably came from there. Two Greek graffiti have been discovered there; one—with the name “Nikias”—was inscribed on a fragment of a vase. The other, an astragalos, was inscribed with ΚΤΗΣ, probably the abbreviation or the first letters of a proper name.⁵ Finally, the remains of fortification walls dating to the Hellenistic period have also been discovered.⁶

It is not clear whether or not there actually was an organized Hellenistic settlement at the site.⁷

*    *    *    *

In general see von Schwarz, Alexander 41–45; Marquart, Eranshahr 303–4; Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:138–40; id. in La Persia (1996) 331–65; V. A. Shishkina, Afrasiab (Tashkent, 1966); P. Bernard, F. Grenet, M. Isamiddinov, et al., CRAI (1990) 356–80; C. Rapin and M. Isamiddinov, Topoi 4 (1994) 547–59; Bosworth, Comment. 1:377; Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Samarkhand 106; Holt, Thundering Zeus 27; Capdetrey, Pouvoir 77 and n. 156; F. Grenet, AnnHSS 59 (2004) 1043–67, esp. 1056–59; J. D . Lerner, Anabasis 1 (2010) 58–68; C. Baratin and L. Martinez-Sève, DA 341 (2010) 32–33 and other articles in DA 341 (2010): “Samarcande, cité mythique au coeur de l’Asie.”

For the results of excavation at Afrasiab see especially P. Bernard et al., CRAI (1990) 356–80 (bibliography in nn. 2–3 for earlier investigations at the site); Bernard et al., CRAI (1992) 275–311; and Bernard in La Persia (1996) 331–65; G. V. Shishkina, Sovietskaja Arxeologija (1975) 60–77; id., BAI 8 (1994) 81–99 (and bibliography in notes, pp. 94–99); L. Martinez-Sève, RA (2003) 202–5; F. Grenet, AnnHSS 59 (2004) 1051–54; for a brief history of excavation at the site see pp. 1045–51; articles in DA 341 (2010).

1. According to the list of Alexander’s foundations at the end of the Syriac Alexander Romance (3.24, trans. Wallis Budge), “The ninth is Alexandria which is in the country of Sôd, that is to say, Samarkand.” Tarn remarked (Alexander 2:244) that it is not clear whether the word “Samarkand” refers to the city of Alexandreia or the country of Sogd. Tarn added that at the very least Alexander did not found Samarkand/Marakanda, noting that this was a later legend. For the later claim that Alexander founded the city of Samarkand see, for example, Romance 3.7 (trans. Wallis Budge, p. 115): “I commanded a city to be built there and to be called Samarkand.” Qudama also included Samarkand among Alexander’s foundations (Kitâb al-Kharâj 206 in BGA 6:265, trans. Goeje), as did al-Tabari ([702] trans. Nöldeke, Beiträge 47) and Hamza al-Isfahani (Sini mulûk 40, trans. Pourshariati in Indo-Grecs 124). See also ALEXANDREIA ΕΠΙ ΣΟΥΣΟΙΣ.

2. For evidence for habitation at Afrasiab before the Hellenistic period see G. V. Shishkina, BAI 8 (1994) 81; Bernard in La Persia (1996) 334–37.

For a map of the region and a plan of the site see, for example, Bernard in La Persia (1996) 333, 335–36; F. Grenet, AnnHSS 59 (2004) 1044.

3. For the ceramic ware see Bernard et al., CRAI (1990) 358; Bernard, Abstracta Iranica 6 (1983) 40; id. in La Persia (1996) 360–64; G. V. Shishkina, BAI 8 (1994) 86. Relying primarily on the ceramic evidence (as well as the numismatic evidence), B. Lyonnet (BAI 12 [1998] 141–59) has suggested that there were three phases of Afrasiab’s history during the Hellenistic period: (a) the first phase—Afrasiab IIA—extended from c. 320 to c. 280 B.C.; (b) this was followed by a period down to the reign of Eukratides I (c. 171/170 B.C.) during which there is no evidence for the presence of Graeco-Bactrians in Marakanda; (c) the last phase of Hellenistic Afrasiab—which she designated as IIB—extended from the reign of Eukratides until some undefined point during the nomadic domination of the region. Cf. J. D. Lerner (Anabasis 1 [2010] 67–69), who has suggested that there was no lacuna between Afrasiab IIA and IIB and that Afrasiab IIA proceeded directly to Afrasiab IIB without interruption.

4. For bricks with Greek letters see Bernard et al., CRAI (1990) 359; Bernard in La Persia (1996) 350–52; C. Rapin and M. Isamiddinov, Topoi 4 (1994) 555–56; G. V. Shishkina, BAI 8 (1994) 85, 88.

5. For the coins see Bernard et al., CRAI (1990) 359; Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:139; and id. in La Persia (1996) 347 and n. 49; G. V. Shishkina, BAI 8 (1994) 88. In a personal communication, L. Martinez-Sève notes that “en ce qui concerne les monnaies, 26 exemplaires ont été récemment découverts par un prospecteur dans des déblais de fouille à l’aide d’un détecteur de métal. Ils se répartissent en 5 drachmes d’argent et 21 bronzes. Les rois attestés avec certitude sont Sophytos, Séleucos I, Diodote I ou II et Antiochos III. La publication est en cours par Anvar Atakhodjaev.” On the checkered history of the coins in the Samarkand Museum see Lerner, Anabasis 1 (2010) 62–64.

For the name Nikias on the vase see Bernard et al., CRAI (1990) 359–60 and nn. 4–7; Bernard in Aï Khanoum 4:139; SEG 44:1303 = I. Estremo Oriente 388 = IGIAC 153; G. V. Shishkina, BAI 8 (1994) 88. For the letters ΚΤΗΣ on the astragalos see Bernard, Topoi 4 (1994) 510–11 (citing X. Axunbabaev, Istorija materialnoj kultury Uzbekistana 25 [1991] 72–77) = SEG 44:1303 = I. Estremo Oriente 387 = IGIAC 152. See also Bernard in Greek Archaeology 92.

6. For the fortification walls see G. V. Shishkina in Fortification 71–78; F. Grenet, AnnHSS 59 (2004) 1052–54.

7. Bernard suggested there was a “communauté coloniale” at the site (in La Persia [1996] 365); in a personal communication L. Martinez-Sève has observed: “Même si Marakanda passe pour une colonie d’Alexandre peu de vestiges archéologiques signalent la présence d’une architecture grecque. Néanmoins, ils indiquent que l’établissement est resté sous contrôle grec au moins un certain temps. C’est ce dont témoignent les fortifications. Celles-ci ne furent pas immédiatement reconstruites après la prise de la ville achéménide: les occupants grecs se contentèrent alors de réparer les remparts de Darius III, en utilisant des briques de format carré, qui se distinguent nettement des briques d’époque achéménide ainsi que des briques hellénistiques utilisées par la suite. . . . À l’heure actuelle [i.e., 2011], on a donc plutôt le sentiment que Samarkand fut pendant l’époque hellénistique un avant-poste militaire à la tête d’un réseau de fortins destiné à contrôler les populations sédentaires et nomades de la vallée du Zéravshan, dans une région qui était située sur les marges du royaume séleucide. L’établissement fut solidement tenu par les Grecs au moins dans les premières décennies qui ont suivi la conquête d’Alexandre, mais pas nécessairement pendant toute l’époque hellénistique. Il est vrai que les incertitudes sont grandes, mais plusieurs éléments convergent pour suggérer que l’établissement fut perdu dans le courant du III^e siècle et brièvement reconquis ensuite. Rien ne permet de conclure en revanche que l’établissement a abrité une forte population grecque et qu’il a connu un véritable développement urbain.”

NIKAIA

According to Arrian (4.22.6) Alexander reached Nikaia on his way to India and sacrificed to Athena.¹ Tcherikover dismissed the possibility that this could have been a Greek settlement because it was already in existence when Alexander arrived there. He suggested the toponym might have originated as the translation of a native name.² However, W. W. Tarn objected—reasonably—that Arrian was using the name proleptically.³ The exact site has not yet been securely identified.⁴

*    *    *    *

In general see Tcherikover, HS 104; Stein, RE s.v. “Nikaia 8”; A. Foucher, CRAI (1939) 435–47; Tarn, GBI² 99 and n. 4; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:293; Bosworth, Comment. 2:146; Fraser, Cities 68, 145–46 and n. 79.

1. Nikaia is also mentioned in the Itinerarium Alexandri (104, ed. Hausmann): “Undecima die quam supermolitus est illic Alexandriam venit. transmissis inde regionibus Parapamisadarum perque Nicaeam oppidum et Cophena flumen Indum petere contendit.” See also Tabacco, Itinerarium Alexandri 225–26.

2. Tcherikover, HS 104, following Wilson, Ariana 183; contra: Tarn, GBI² 99 n. 4.

3. For Alexander as the founder of Nikaia see also Fraser, Cities 68. Fraser adds (Cities 145–46): “Though he [i.e., Arrian] does not specifically say so, his language suggests that the city was already in existence, and was therefore perhaps one of the subsidiary foundations (‘other cities’) made by Alexander before he crossed the mountain northwards, which are mentioned by Diodorus (17.83.2).” Droysen suggested (Hist. 2:683; see also Tarn, GBI² 99 n. 4 and Brunt, Arrian 1:321 n. 6) that Nikaia might be one of the “other cities,” a day’s journey from Alexandreia, mentioned by Diodorus (17.83.2). On this passage see ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus.

4. Various suggestions have been made regarding the location:

1. Kabul (e.g., C. Ritter, Abh. Berlin Akad. [1829] 162; Cunningham, Geography 42; Cunningham claimed that Nonnus Dionysiaca 16.403–5 referred to this Nikaia. In fact the reference is undoubtedly to NIKAIA in Bithynia; see further, L. Robert, HSCP 81 [1977] 14–15; and P. Chuvin, Mythologie et géographie dionysiaques [Clermont-Ferrand, 1991] 148). For Kabul see also Ball, Monuments of Afghanistan 218–27.

2. Between Charikar and Kabul (Bevan, CHI 1:348).

3. Begram (e.g., Wilson, Ariana 183; Trinkler, Afghanistan 58; Hackin, Recherches 4).

4. A site a bit north of the Kabul (Cophen) River, near the village of Mandrawar, c. 15 km northwest of Jalalabad (e.g., Foucher, CRAI [1939] 435–47, id., Vieille Route 1:35, 2:204 [map] and 205; see also Ghirshman, Bégram 8; Goukowsky, Essai 2:151 n. 1). Fraser objected (Cities 146 n. 79): “The precise site selected on topographical grounds by Foucher, Mandawara, just north of the Kabul river before it is joined by the Alinghar and Alishang rivers, flowing down from the Kafiristan mountains, has not been investigated in detail: Ball’s account of it (Gazetteer Afghanistan no. 705 and map 112) is not encouraging: ‘Many mounds in and around the village. On a hill to the north are some petroglyphs of ibex’ ”). In any case, as Bevan (CHI 1:348 n. 3) rightly saw (if we follow Arr. 4.22.6: ἀφικόμενος δὲ ἐς Νίκαιαν . . . προὐχώρει ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν Κωφῆνα), Nikaia was not itself on the river; from Nikaia Alexander advanced toward the Cophen [Kabul] River.

5. West of the Cophen River, in the triangle of lower Parapamisadai (Bosworth, Comment. 2:146).

In general see Stein, RE s.v. “Nikaia 8”; Foucher, CRAI (1939) 435–36; and Bosworth, Comment. 2:146 and map 3; Fraser, Cities 144–46.

PROPHTHASIA

According to Stephanos (s.v. “Phrada,” citing Charax of Pergamon), Phrada was a city in Drangiane that Alexander renamed Prophthasia. Strabo, citing Eratosthenes (11.8.9 = Berger, Fragmente IIIB 20), says that it was 1,600 stades ( = c. 200 miles) from ALEXANDREIA in Aria (Herat) to Prophthasia. Pliny (NH 6.61) gives essentially the same figure: 199 Roman miles.¹ Pliny, Plutarch (De Fort. Alex. 328F), Ptolemy (6.19.4), and Ammianus Marcellinus (23.6.71) referred to it as “Prophthasia.” The latter added that it was wealthy and famous. Isidore of Charax (16) referred to it as Phra and described it as a “very great city.”² We do not know if there was a mint at Prophthasia.³

Treidler suggested that Prophthasia was the main link between Arachosia and Gedrosia. Note, however, that the exact location of Prophthasia is not yet known.⁴

*    *    *    *

In general see Treidler, RE s.v. “Prophthasia 2”; Tcherikover, HS 102–3; Berve, Alexanderreich 1:293; Tarn, GBI² 14 and n. 4, 49, 347, 482; id., Alexander 2:236; Daffina, Immigrazione 88–96; Orth, Diadochenzeit 134; Fraser, Cities 123–30.

1. The figures given by Strabo and Pliny for the distance from Prophthasia to Alexandreia differ from the actual distance between Farah and Herat, i.e., c. 160 miles. This caused Tarn (GBI² 14 and n. 4, 347; see also Droysen [Hist. 2:674], who earlier noted the discrepancy) to place Prophthasia further from Herat, in the region of Zaranj. Furthermore, Tarn argued that Prophthasia (“Anticipation,” i.e., presumably a reference to Philotas’s conspiracy) was a nickname for Alexandreia in Seistan (see Tarn, Alexander 2:233: “No one who has written on the subject has understood that, as Alexander’s cities in the East all had the same official name, Alexandria, there naturally grew up for daily use a series of popular names or nicknames, which largely ousted the official names altogether from the literature we possess”). Elsewhere he wrote (GBI² 14): “Prophthasia in Seistan (Drangiane or Zarangiane) . . . was only a nickname . . . the official name, Alexandria, has been preserved by the Chinese historian Pan-ku, who called Seistan O-ik-san-li, a word which has been shown to be Alexandria”; and (347): “It was suggested long ago that O-ki-san-li was Alexandria and that seems now certain; but it has not been asked where an Alexandria could be found in Seistan. One can now see that it was the official name of Prophthasia, Alexander’s capital of Seistan, which has perished in the Greek tradition”; see also Foucher, Vieille Route 2:216, 275, 410; and below, Appendix VIII. However, Fraser correctly objected (Cities 126 n. 43): “There is no indication . . . which Alexandria Pan-ku was referring to. Chavannes, T’oung Pao 6 (1905) 555, n. 7 (quoted by A. F. P. Hulsewé, China in Central Asia 112, n. 250) identified it with Alexandria in Aria as against Marquart’s identification of it with Alexandria in Arachosia. . . . Granted the uncertainty of frontiers in these provinces, it seems much more likely that the important centre in the valley of the Hari-Rud should be picked out to express the region to the south of the Kushan kingdom than the almost unknown city of Alexandria in Sakastane. It is any case doubtful to what extent the Chinese of the former Han dynasty had direct knowledge of the region. I do not think we are justified in accepting Prophthasia as an Alexandria on this basis, though it finally stood in the index to Tarn’s Alexander, ii.455 as Alexandria (15).” Finally, Fraser (Cities 130) (a) posited that Alexander himself bestowed the name (i.e., Prophthasia) on the settlement, and (b) denied that “Prophthasia” was a nickname. He also concluded that the ancient identity of Ghazni was “not determinable” (Cities 139, 249).

We may set out these attributions in tabular form.

TABLE 7.3

See maps at the end of Fraser, Cities.

2. Regarding Ammianus Marcellinus, Fraser (Cities 131 n. 50, 142 n. 71) commented on the “looseness” of his description of cities in the East and remarked that he “seems to have invented his description of the ‘cities’ in the eastern provinces, perhaps assisted by scrutiny of a schematic illustrated itinerary.”

3. Newell speculated that two tetradrachms from India, struck in the coregency of Seleukos I and Antiochos I (ESM nos. 747–48; see p. 261) may have been produced at a mint at Prophthasia. Contra: Bernard and Guillaume (RN [1980] 19 n.19), who suggested a mint in Bactria (but not Baktra itself).

4. Droysen (Hist. 1:409 n. 1, 3:676) could not offer a possible location for the site of Prophthasia. Tarn identified it with Zaranj (GBI² 14 and n. 4); contra: Daffina, Immigrazione 90–93. Treidler (RE s.v. “Prophthasia 2”), Kaerst (Hellenismus 1³:424 n. 2), and Berve (Alexanderreich 1:293) suggested it might have been located at the site of the modern Farah. On the map in Cities Fraser placed Prophthasia (with a question mark) at Farah.

RHOITIA IN BACTRIA

Stephanos (s.v. “Rhoitia”) mentions a Rhoitia in Bactria. This is the only extant information about the settlement. Rhoiteion is the name of a town in the Troad and a place in the territory of Megalopolis.¹ It is possible that Rhoitia was named for one of these. We do not know who might have founded it.

*    *    *    *

In general see Tarn, GBI² 120.

1. On Rhoiteion in the Troad see Bürchner, RE s.v. “Rhoiteion 1, 3”; Cook, The Troad 77–78, 87–88. On the Rhoiteion in the territory of Megalopolis see Bölte, RE s.v. “Rhoiteion 2.”

SOTEIRA

Appian (Syr. 57) included Soteira among the foundations in Parthia with names from Greece or Macedonia that he ascribed to Seleukos I Nikator.¹ On the other hand, Ammianus (23.6.69), Ptolemy (6.17.7), and Stephanos (s.v. “Soteira”) placed it in Aria. Furthermore, Stephanos says that it was founded by Antiochos son of Seleukos, namely, Antiochos I Soter. Antiochos’s epithet suggests that he, rather than his father, may have been the founder. We do not know where this settlement was located.²

*    *    *    *

In general see Droysen, Hist. 2: 751; Herrmann, RE s.v. “Soteira”; Bevan, Seleucus 1:269; Tcherikover, HS 102; Tarn, GBI² 13; Brodersen, Komment. 159; Fontaine, Ammien XXIII-XXV 2:116–17; Cohen in Cultural Horizons 84; K. Ehling, SNR 76 (1997) 32.

1. For Tarn’s claim (GBI² 13) that “Soteira” was a nickname and that the real name of the foundation is lost see Appendix VIII.

2. Location. Herrmann (RE s.v. “Soteira”) suggested that Soteira was located on the south shore of the lake of Aria (modern Zerrah; see Ptol. 6.17.2); cf. Fontaine, Ammien XXIII-XXV 2:116–17. See also Vaux, Dict. Geog. s.v. “Aria Lacus”; and Lexique s.v. “Aria Lacus”; Berthelot, Asie 177; Markwart, Wehrot 24.

TETRAGONIS

Pliny (NH 6.92) mentioned a town beneath the Hindu Kush, Cartana, that was subsequently called Tetragonis (“Cartana oppidum sub Caucaso, quod postea Tetragonis dictum”).¹ Its location is not definitely known.²

*    *    *    *

In general see Lassen, Ind. Alter. 2:122; Cunningham, Geography 31–33; Tcherikover, HS 104; Tarn, GBI² 98–99; Fraser, Cities 149–50 nn. 87–88; Ghirshman, Bégram 8.

1. Tarn (GBI² 98–99) remarked that “Cartana, nicknamed Tetragonis must have been a Greek city, a native place rebuilt on the Hellenistic model, for tetragonos is practically a technical term for a city laid out on the Hellenistic plan described by Polybius [6.31.10], four-square with two main roads intersecting at the centre of the city.”

Cunningham (Geography 31–32) identified Pliny’s Cartana with the Karsana or Karnasa mentioned by Ptolemy (7.1.43, ed. Stückelberger and Grasshoff; Καίσανα in Nobbe’s edition). As Tarn remarked, if this identification is valid, then Ptolemy’s unnamed river is the Ghorband.

2. Location. Tarn suggested that Cartana was located at Bamiyan and that its importance stemmed from its position on the main road from Baktra to ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus and on to India (GBI² 99); on Bamiyan see A. Foucher in Études asiatiques 1:260–63 and map on p. 278; Fraser, Cities map at end. Cunningham, on the other hand, claimed (Geography 18, 31–33) that Cartana-Tetragonis was located at the site of Begram and that it ultimately merged with the nearby H(O)pian; contra: Fraser (Cities 149 n. 87 and 150 n. 88), who noted that excavation at Begram has not supported this hypothesis; and Ghirshman (Bégram 8), who identified Begram with Kapisa (on Begram see ALEXANDREIA of the Caucasus). Following Pliny’s indications, Ghirshman suggested that Cartana was in the northern part of the Parapamisadai.

THERA IN SOGDIANA

According to Stephanos (s.v. “Thera”) there was a Thera in Sogdiana. Thera, of course, was the name of the Aegean island as well as of a city in Caria. The toponym Therai is also attested in the Peloponnese. It is possible that Thera in Sogdiana was named for one of these places.¹ We do not know who might have founded this colony.

*    *    *    *

In general see Ruge, RE s.v. “Thera”; Tarn, GBI² 120.

1. In a personal communication Paul Bernard informs me that he is “persuadé que ce lieu [i.e., Thera in Sogdiana] a bien existé, mais qu’il résulte de la confusion d’une ville avec un parc de chasse, à une cinquantiane de km à l’est de Marakand, où Alexandre avait organisé en 328 une battue gigantesque pour son armée et où il s’était lui-meme illustré en abattant seul et à pied, armé d’un épieu, un lion, écartant rudement Lysimaque qui avait voulu s’interposer entre la bâte et lui, pour protéger son souverain. . . . Le mot grec thêra signifie à la fois ‘chasse’ et ‘lieu de chasse’ ‘paradis de chasse’. En Syrie Kerka de-Sida qui s’est appelée Marcopolis dans les années 240 porte dans un document araméen de 242 le nom de ‘Marcopolis Théra’ ‘mrqpwls tr”. Teixidor considère que ‘tr” représente le grec ‘thêra’ (CRAI 1990, p. 156). Le paradis de Bazeira ou se déroula la chasse d’Alexandre était bien pour les Grecs la thêra de Bazeira. Il n’est guère étonnant que thêra ait pu survivre dans la tradition tardive comme une ville de Sogdiane.” See further Bernard in Mélanges Jean-François Jarrige (forthcoming); and ANTHEMOUSIAS Charax Sidou, n. 6.