Journal articles on the topic 'Arsacid dynasty'

In the eighth book of Lucan's Bellum Ciuile, Pompey sends the Galatian king Deiotarus into the distant East to seek an alliance with Parthia, the vast empire beyond the Euphrates ruled by the Arsacid dynasty. His instructions to Deiotarus begin with these lines (8.211–14):‘quando’ ait ‘Emathiis amissus cladibus orbis,qua Romanus erat, superest, fidissime regum,Eoam temptare fidem populosque bibentisEuphraten et adhuc securum a Caesare Tigrim.’

The campaign of the Seleucid king Antiochus VII led against the newly expanded empire of the Parthians (the Arsacid dynasty) is a very important, but largely forgotten episode of ancient military history. Conducted during 130 and 129 BC, it was the final attempt by the Macedonian dynasty of Seleucids to preserve its position as the leading power in Western Asia, against growing Arsacid might that gradually took control over Iran, Mesopotamia and parts of Central Asia. Apart from marking the definitive end of Seleucids as a great power, this event is noteworthy because of the consequences it had for the Parthian military organization and doctrine. The very beginning of the war was marked by massive defeats on the side of the Parthians, with battles, entire armies and regions lost. The Parthian king Phraates II learnt appropriate lessons from the defeat and reorganized what was left of his army for the type of warfare: instead of leading massive positional battles, the victory is to be won through maneuver warfare, exhaustion of the enemy and the elimination of the smaller and isolated parts of the hostile force. There is significant support for the claim that the changes brought on by this experience had a character of a true military revolution - a revolution that shaped the classical Parthian way of warfare. This was one of the most important factors for the later (and mostly successful) Parthian resistance to the Romans, and particularly in their greatest military triumph: the victory over the Army of Marcus Crassus at Carrhae in 53 BC.

A serpentine path created by the river Tang-āb through the Zagros Mountains has always been the only access from north to the city of Ardašīr-Xwarrah, located at five kilometers west from the modern Fīrūzābād, in Iran. This inaccessibility prompted the king of Fārs Ardašīr to found his stronghold against the Arsacid power here. This path endured the fall of the Sasanian Empire throughout Islamic times as a crossroads of the routes connecting the port of Sīrāf to other cities. The impervious path allowed both the coup d'État that marked the rise of the Sasanian dynasty and the development of trades through Fīrūzābād. The reliefs of Ardašīr's victory over the Arsacid King and his investiture by the god Ohrmazd are carved in the gorge, ad perpetuam rei memoriam. Furthermore the rose-water produced in Fīrūzābād travelled on the steep path farsakh by farsakh (literally, parasang by parasang) so it could spread through the entire dār al-Islam. The movement of goods and populations on this road has survived with the Qashqaii nomads, who travel along this path even today, during their seasonal migration.

The priority for the Sasanid rulers was to eliminate from the throne of Armenia, the Parthian Arsacid dynasty, linked by blood ties to the formerly abolished Iranian ruling dynasty. In 298, the Battle of Satala took place in Armenia, in which the Roman army commanded by Caesar Galerius won a crushing victory over the Sassanian troops headed by King Narseh. The Romans captured huge amounts of booty and captured the Persian royal family. The campaign ended with a peace treaty very favourable to Rome, in which Narseh renounced Trans-Tigritania, pledged non-intervention in Armenia, and recognised the Roman protectorate in Iberia. The revision of the so-called Treaty of Nisibis was the foundation of the Persian-Roman wars in the 4th century carried out by Shapur II. In this study, it is aimed to give information about the effect of the Battle of Satala on the beginning of the Persian-Roman wars in the 4th century and its results.

Abstract This article analyzes how Zoroastrian holy sites as celebrated in the Avesta or elaborated in later, related traditions, emerged as important architectural and ritual centers in late antiquity. Instead of ancient foundations whose details were lost in the depths of time, this paper argues that some of the holiest sanctuaries of the Zoroastrian religion, including Ādur Gušnasp, Ādur Farnbāg, Ādur Burzēn-Mihr, Ādur Karkōy and Lake Kayānsīh, emerged no earlier than the Arsacid era, and were actively manipulated and augmented by the Sasanian dynasty. These ‘Avestan’ sites of memory emerged at locales with no previous Achaemenid monumental construction, but did benefit from beautiful and dramatic natural features. In late antiquity these natural features, usually mountains or lakes, took on the names and significance of the sacred geography of as found in the Avesta. The Sasanian dynasty in particular built grand monumental complexes as its sovereigns sought to take control of these ancient Iranian traditions.

Throughout the Talmudic era, the Jewish community of Babylonia lived under Persian rule while Zoroastrianism, serving as a state religion, was enjoying something of a renaissance. In Babylonia, known in the later geographical literature as the Persian heartland, Jews lived alongside Persians. Babylonian Jews had also already experienced Persian rule for centuries prior to the Talmudic era under the Achaemenids, and later under the persianized Arsacid dynasty. This alone should have sufficed to lure a number of scholars into exploring various cross-cultural contacts between the two neighboring religious communities during this period. Until recently, however, scholarship has not been greatly drawn to this field, despite an exhaustive focus, of venerable antiquity, on the relationship between Israel and Persia in the biblical and Second Temple periods, including the Qumran library.

The article is devoted to the issues of clarifying the Chronology of official Christianization of Caucasian Albania, which took place in the beginning of 4th century AD. The study of the information from the “Life of Gregory” (a variant of Agathangelos’ “History”), “Letter of Giut to Saint Vachē”, “Tale of Vachagan”, “History of Albania” by Movses Daskhurançi and other Armenian sources suggest that Christianity in the Albanian kingdom was officially adopted in 313 or 315 years. The king of the country then was the founder of the Arsacid dynasty of Albania Vachagan I the Brave (but not his grandson Urnayr), and the king of Armenia was Tiridat III the Great, also Arsacid. As M.-L. Chaumont established in 1969, the latter, with the help of Gregory the Illuminator, adopted the Christian faith at the state level in June 311, two months after the publication of the Edict of Sardica “On Tolerance” by Emperor Galerius (293–311). In 313, after the appearance of the Edict of Milan, Tiridat attracted the younger allies of Armenia Iberia-Kartli, Albania-Aluank' and Lazika-Egerk' (Colchis) to the process of Christianization. In the first half of 315, Gregory the Illuminator baptized the Albanian king (who had arrived in Armenia) and ordained the first bishop Tovmas (the founder of the Albanian church, with the center in the capital Kapalak) for his country: he was from the city of Satala in Lesser Armenia. Probably, at the same stage, Christianization covered the whole of antique Albania, i.e. territory north of the Kura River, to the Caspian Sea and the Derbend Pass.

In the southern regions of Iran (Persia), Zoroastrianism was represented by numerous temples and pantheons of gods, while in the Northern provinces, fire worship retained its early form, recognizing one deity - Ahramazda. With the coming to power of the Sassanids, the number of temples began to increase. The fact that peregrine And his son were priests of the Anahita temple also set priorities during their rule. When the Sassanids came to power, Ardeshir imposed a special tax (one-tenth) on the temples of fire-worshippers. However, environmental analysis shows that during the reign of various rulers, Mazdeism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and even Christianity gained moderate ascendancy in the Sassanid state, albeit temporarily. For the first 300 years after Christ, there was a serious struggle in Eastern Anatolia to become a strong and lasting religion. The first Christian Church in Parthia played a leading role in this struggle. The lack of information about the history of Parthia, and sometimes very little, enriches this period with legends. The Parthian aristocracy maintained its influence in the Northern regions of Persia. The reign of the Arshakids (of aranshah) continued in Albania until the 6th century. The Parthians understood and practiced fire worship differently than in Persia. The Parthian nobles saw and knew the important role of the temple of Anahita in the victory of the sons of Sassanids. Along with various traditional religions, many new religions spread in the Persian province and in Persian geography, new concepts were synthesized between religions, there was fierce competition between religions, and religious clans sought access to large palaces. The early Christians who settled in the Northern provinces of Parthia in the middle of the third century gained a large following. In 252-326, Gregory (his Church name) was the son of Apak (Anak) of the Arshakid dynasty , and he was baptized in Cappadocia and received a Christian upbringing. When another of the Arsacid dynasty, Prince Tridad, together with Gregory, founded the first Christian Church, of course, the Central government did not like it, and the persecution increased. However, by the will of the sons of A, they were able to hold and preserve the Church. The younger son of Gregory, Arastun (Armenians call him Aristakes), led the Church in 325-333, and then his older brother, the first son of Gregory erfan (Arfan) (Armenians call him Vrtanes), took over the leadership of the Church in 333-341 on the advice of his father was brought to the leadership. Arastun took part in the creation of the churches of Albania and Iveria, became their first Bishop, and participated in the first world Council of Christians (Nicaea-Syria). Early Christians quickly forgot the important decisions made at the first meeting of the apostles of Jesus, and Christians all over the world are involved in intrigues between the two churches - the Church of Nicaea (Syria) and the Church of Alexandria. After the formation of the Church of Constantinople, competition increased, and although the Christian Church in Eastern Anatolia and Cappadocia was subordinate to Constantinople, the Syriac Church sent representatives to Cappadocia and Eastern Anatolia in search of supporters. The church, founded by Gregory, son of Apak, acts as a true Christian church under the leadership of 10 generations after him and proclaims that Christianity is a divine religion. Only in 437, with the appointment of Hovhannes, a disciple of the Syrian missionary and provocateur Mesrop Mashtos (educated in Syria), the leadership of the church changed the character of the first Christian Church of the Parthians, covering a large area from Eastern Anatolia to Albania. The first Christian Church of the Parthians changed its essence, defining the status of a national church, and not a propagandist of common Christian values.

The last ruler of the Severan dynasty, Emperor Severus Alexander had to face an entirely new threat in Mesopotamia, because in 224 AD the Parthian royal house of the Arsacids, which had ruled in the East for nearly half a millennium, was dethroned by the Neo-Persian Sasanian dynasty and the new rulers of Persia were extremely hostile to the Roman Empire. The vast majority of the late antique Latin sources (Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Festus, Jerome, Orosius, Cassiodorus, Iordanes) call the first Sasanian monarch, Ardashir I (reigned 224–241 AD), who was at war with Rome between 231 and 233 AD, Xerxes, although the Greek equivalent of the Middle Persian name Ardashir is Artaxerxes, as used by the Greek sources. In the Latin textual tradition we can find the correct Greek name of Ardashir only in the Historia Augusta. The paper seeks answers to the question of why Ardashir was usually called Xerxes by late antique Latin sources.

On affirme souvent que les Arsacides, dynastie iranienne qui à partir de la seconde moitié du IIe s. av. J.-C. fut à la tête d’un immense empire dont la limite occidentale était constituée par l’Euphrate, mirent en avant les liens qu’ils entretenaient avec les Achéménides et cherchèrent à apparaître comme les héritiers de ces derniers. L’un des signes les plus tangibles de cette identification serait, sous le règne de Mithridate II d’abord, l’adoption du titre de «Roi des Rois » au sein de la titulature royale. Cette interprétation de la résurgence d’un vieux titre achéménide n’est pourtant pas aussi assurée qu’il y paraît ; contrairement à ce qu’on imagine souvent, on ne saurait affirmer en effet que dans l’Antiquité, le titre de «Roi des Rois » apparaissait comme le plus emblématique de ceux qu’avaient portés les rois perses et évoquait immédiatement leur souvenir. Il semble bien plutôt que ce soit les Arsacides qui, en l’adoptant, aient fait de ce titre le titre iranien par excellence.

A significant political influence of Sasanian Iran on Caucasian Albania gives reasons to consider the spread of the Middle Persian language and writing among the Albanian nobility and authorities. This process contributed by the existence of close dynastic ties between the Arsacids of Albania and the Sasanian royal family at least since from the reign of King Urnayr (ca. 350–375) up the abolition of Albanian kingdom at the beginning of the 6th century. Written sources provide the correspondence of the rulers of Albania, Armenia, Iberia with the Sasanians and the written decrees of the shāhanshāhs sent to the Transcaucasian provinces of Iran, which indirectly indicates the spread of the Middle Persian language and writing here. Currently, there are three known unique gem-seals that date back to the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 6th century and belonged to the representatives of higher secular and church authorities. These are the seals of the King of Albania Aswahen, Crown Prince Asay and the Great Catholicos of Albania and Balasakan. They are of great interest for the study of cultural and political ties between Sasanian Iran and Albania, Albanian sphragistics. The title inscriptions on these official seals are made in pārsīg (pahlavi), which shows the role of the Middle Persian languages and writing among the highest Albanian nobility and the highest Christian clergy of the country, clearly indicates the huge political and cultural influence of Sasanian Iran on the Caucasian Albania. These monuments of glyptics show that the Middle Persian language and writing had the official status in the Early Medieval Albania.

Theoretically, the Byzantine Emperor was, just like in the times of the Roman Empire, chosen on the basis of his personal qualities and merits ? by the grace of God, of course. Practically, the factors which determined the ascension of a person to the throne were much more complex, the methods of gaining power being multifarious. In consequence, the political philosophy was confronted with the question of whether it is virtue (aret?) or origin (g?noz) that defines an Emperor. Independently of this rather theoretical question, however, and despite the claims that the personal qualities are decisive in the choice of the Emperor, the origin of the ruler played an important role in the consciousness of the Byzantines of all epochs. This is why great attention was paid to the creation of family trees, especially in the cases when the Emperor was of low origin (homo novus) or when it was for some reason necessary to strengthen his legitimacy. The choice of the genealogy was not random: since it carried a clear political message, it was of utmost importance with whom the Emperor in power would be associated and whose historical deeds or legendary personality would serve as a moral model. Also important is the fact that the search of a "good family" was as a rule triggered by the need to confirm one's own virtue. Thus, genealogies often reflect a certain system of values, usually emphasizing morality, courage in war, care for the welfare of the country, piety, etc. The choice of the archetype depended, of course, on the needs of the ruler for whom the genealogy was created. All this allows us to consider legendary genealogies as an expression of the imperial ideology. Notwithstanding their chronological diversity, the Byzantine imperial genealogies display very similar characteristics, i.e. they contain stereotypical elements, many of which had been established already in the first centuries of the Eastern Empire. In the early Byzantine period, when Christianity was still young, Emperors were frequently associated with pagan gods and semi gods, like Jupiter, Mars or Hercules. The Roman tradition of the eastern part of the Empire is also reflected in the fictive genealogies, so that the Emperors often chose Western Emperors or illustrious personalities and families of the Republican Era as their ancestors. The convention of establishing genealogical relations with the past rulers or their families (e.g. Claudius Gothicus, Trajan, the Flavii) served on one hand to create the impression of continuity and legitimacy, and on the other, to affirm the proclaimed system of values, since individual Roman Emperors had by that time become the prototypes of certain values (so Nerva stood for tranquility, Titus for philanthropy, Antoninus for high morality, Hadrian for justice and legality, Trajan for a successful military leader). In the same fashion, the creation of the family ties with persons from the Roman republican past, like the members of the family of the Scipios or Gnaeus Pompeius, was instrumental in the emphasizing of not only noble origin but also virtue. Interestingly enough, whereas the bonds with the Roman state are permanently evoked, the exempla from the Greek history play only a minor role in legendary genealogies (mostly Corinthians and Spartans, sometimes even mythical nations, like Homer's Pheacians). The central position of the Roman ideology is also reflected in the tendency to establish direct geographical connections between the origin of the ruler and either Rome itself or one of the Western provinces, so that the motif of migration is often found in the genealogies. On the other hand, Byzantine writers sometimes tended to boast with their knowledge of the history of the Ancient Orient, connecting famous personalities (like Artaxerxes) or dynasties (Achaemenids, Arsacids) with the Emperor whose genealogy they were composing. A special place in legendary genealogies is occupied by Constantine the Great. Almost as a rule, the genealogies postulate a kinship with him, often confirming it with the alleged physical resemblance. Depending on the purpose of the genealogy, certain purported features of Constantine's character were emphasized, so that he is alternately mentioned as a protector of the Christian faith, a triumphant military leader, or as a wise administrator of the Empire. Apart from that, the motifs of founding the new Capital and the migration of the Roman patrician families to Constantinople represent important topoi in this literary genre. The two most fascinating specimens of legendary genealogies in the Byzantine literature ? those of Basil I the Macedonian and Nikephoros III Botaneiates ? show that the choice of the elements of which the genealogy is composed (personality, family, dynasty) is at the same time a strong indication of the reason why it was composed in the first place. The genealogy of Basil the Macedonian was doubtlessly conceived by more than one person. It is quite certain that the idea to compose it originally came from Photios and was taken over by Basil's descendents ? his son Leo VI and his grandson Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. The core of Basil's legendary genealogy is the story of his origin from the Parthian-Armenian dynasty of Arsacids (an indication of the Armenian origin of the founder of the Macedonian dynasty?). Constantine Porphyrogennetos elaborated this story further, describing in some detail the fate of Arsac's descendents, to whom Basil was allegedly related on his father's side, in the Byzantine Empire. This, of course, does not mean that he forgot to create connections between his grandfather and the standard legendary ancestors, like Constantine the Great (on Basil's mother's side) and Alexander the Great (the common ancestors of both Basil's parents). This apocryphal family tree certainly has its roots in the fact that the founder of the Macedonian dynasty was a parvenu of low origin, whose ascent to the throne was maculated by the murder of his predecessor and benefactor Michael III: apart from providing Basil with the noble origin, the genealogy was supposed to strengthen his right to the crown. One should keep in mind, though, that Basil's genealogy was written in the time of "Macedonian renaissance", so that its content is doubtlessly partly a product of the erudition of the compilers. In the course of time, legendary genealogies were enriched with new elements, stemming from the Byzantine history in the narrower sense of the word. The genealogy of Nikephoros III Botaneiates, compiled by Michael Attaleiates in the second half of the 11th century, is a good illustration to this. In contrast to Basil the Macedonian's genealogy, it is interwoven with real historical data, so that it cannot be called 'legendary' in its entirety. It would probably be more appropriate to call it a genealogy of both the Phokades and the Botaneiatai, since its core is made up of an invented story of the origin of the famous Byzantine family of Phokades, from which the family of Botaneiatai purportedly stems. The genealogy is clearly divided into three parts. In the first part, Attaleiates develops a theory according to which the Phokades are descendents of the Roman patrician families of Fabii and Scipios. The second part is devoted to the elaboration of the genealogical connection between the Phokades and the Botaneiatai, a tour deforce achieved by the claim that the latter are direct descendents of Nikephoros II Phokas, who is not only the central figure of this part in his capacity as an ancestor of Nikephoros III, but also as a model of a virtuous Emperor. Comparable to the habit of other writers to single out one or another characteristic trait of Constantine the Great according to their needs, Attaleiates concentrates on Nikephoros Phokas' military qualities, which are similar to those possessed by his "descendent" Botaneiates, and emphasizes the physical resemblance between the two rulers. In all likelihood, the part on the genealogy of the Phokades, as well as the story of Nikephoros Phokas, were taken over from an earlier tradition dealing with this renowned family, which Attaleiates implicitly mentions when he says that he had used 'an old book' and some other writings. As indicated above, the last, third, part of the genealogy, devoted to the deeds of Nikephoros Botaneiates' father and grandfather, does not fit the narrow definition of a legendary genealogy, despite the exaggerations Attaleiates uses in order to satisfy the demands of the genre. The description of Nikephoros Botaneiates' family tree represents merely an excursus within Attaleiates' History, but its composition has nevertheless an internal coherence and logic. Namely, all parts of the genealogy (the histories of the Fabii/Scipios, Phokades, and Botaneiatai) have one characteristic in common: the stories of the military deeds of the members of these families are used as an illustration of the military virtues of Nikephoros III. Since the hidden intention of the panegyric for Nikephoros III Botaneiates is to justify his usurpation of the throne, it is clear that a genealogy in this form ? especially the section pertaining to Nikephoros Phokas and his kinship with the usurper's father and grandfather ? represents a good basis for a legalistic interpretation of the coup d'?tat of 1078. The permeation of legendary genealogies with the Byzantine history is not confined only to individual Emperors which, like Nikephoros II Phokas, get assigned the role of the ancestor and moral model: some aristocratic families, most often the Phokades and the Doukai, also became moral exempla, serving to prove the reputation and the nobility of the ruler. As in the case of the Phokades, there is also a legendary tradition surrounding the family of Doukai, which made them a kind of model family: Being related to them became a measure of nobility, since it allowed the less prominent families to occupy a more distinguished place on the hierarchy of the Byzantine nobility. The prominence certain family names achieved ? mostly those of the families which created a dynasty ? led from the beginning of the 12th century until the fall of the Empire to free adoption and combination of more different surnames (mostly Doukai, Komnenoi, Angeloi, Palaiologoi, Kantakouzenoi, etc.). This, in turn, led to the creation of fictitious family trees. This kind of apocryphal construction of one's own origin was characteristic not only of the Byzantine culture but rather represented a very common phenomenon in the medieval world. In the medieval Serbia, for instance, its dissemination was fostered by the translation of the writings of the Byzantine chroniclers (Georgios Monachos, John Malalas, Constantine Manasses, and John Zonaras), so that legendary genealogies, written according to the Byzantine pattern, became an expression of the wish to include one's own history into the flow of the world history. Finally, a note on the reception of this genealogical line of thought. Parallel to the fictitious genealogies, there also existed a consciousness about them: Just like the development and the functional load of genealogies reveals a lot about the attitudes of the Byzantines towards power, so do the Byzantine writers who often criticize and ridicule the genealogies of individual Emperors. .

The role of the high aristocracy, the so-called pahlavs, is undeniable in the history of the Parthian state. In the second half of III century BC the assistance of the pahlavs to the Arsacid dynasty considerably contributed to the establishment of the Dahae and organization of their own state in Parthia and Hyrcania. During the following centuries the rises and crises of the political life of the Parthian statehood and even its final decline in the first quarter of the III century was due to the attitude of the Parthian pahlavs towards the Arsacid dynasty. In spite of the key role of the pahlavs, the issues of their ethnic origin, social nature, their number and the relations with the royal power are still poorly studying in historical science. We hope that this article will bring its contribution in studying the history of the Parthian pahlavs.

This article aims at revealing the internal political developments of the Arsacid dynasty of Greater Armenia in the 40s of the 4th century, as well as the relations of the Armenian king Tiran with Rome and Persia, having as main target the foreign policy events. To achieve the above goal, the following tasks are at the core of the work. a) to study the foreign policy challenges of the Arsacid dynasty of Greater Armenia in the wake of the Roman-Persian conflict, b) to study the foreign and domestic policy pursued by the Armenian king Tiran. The work is written by a combined examination of facts, using the methods of historical-comparative analysis. As a result of the study, it can be argued that the external environment of the Armenian kingdom remained tense during the historical period of the kingdom of Tiran. Neighboring political units constantly threatened the security of the state. Under such conditions, Tiran adopted a flexible foreign policy. On the one hand, the Armenian king remained loyal to the Armenian-Roman allience, on the other hand, he tried to normalize relations with Persia. In domestic politics, Tiran was the real successor to Khosrov Kotak. With his policy he helped to unite the diveded country, he tried to strengthen the centrifugal power in the country.

In the 40s of the last century, J. Wolski proposed a thesis, still dominant in historiography, arguing that the story of Arrian which reached us thanks to his work “Parthica” that the Arsacid dynasty, the founder of Parthian state, descended from the Achaemenids, has a fictional origin. According to J. Wolski, J. Neusner and their followers, it is an "ideological fiction", a "literary forgery", which appeared in the period between the second half of II century BC and the beginning of the I century AD and was recorded in written form by Arrian. However, the conclusion, based on the limited and often one-sided data by Strabo and Justin, is defective and does not meet the current requirements of the study of the problem. Оnly a comprehensive examination of the evidence provided by written sources in the field of the Parthian numismatics, epigraphy, archaeology, onomastics and other branches of science can give a complete answer to the issue. In this case, it becomes obvious that the "Arrianian" legend about the genealogical connection between the Arsacids and the Achaemenids is not just a literary fiction, but has a real historical basis.

Key words: the Aparns, the Xanthi, the Pissurs, the Achaemenids, Parthia, Soghdiana, Bactria, Strabo, Arshak I, Diodotos I, Evtidemos I At the beginning of 4th century BC, the Dahai tribes of the Xanthi and Pissurs were ousted from the steppes of left bank of Amu Darya’s delta by newly independent Khorezm. They received from the Achaemenid king Artaxerxes II a new migration area in Soghdiana, in the Zeravshan basin. As a result of this resettlement, the three-tribal union of Dahai practically split into two parts. Their traditional connections and centralized control system were broken. The Sogdian Dahai adapted to the satrapy administration of Bactria and remained loyal to the Achaemenid dynasty until the end. However, in 327 BC, after the establishment of Macedonian rule in Soghd, their condition began to deteriorate. The policy of tight control over the nomads by the Macedonian administration of the “Upper satrapies” changed the previously normal and mutually beneficial coexistence of the nomadic and settled population of the oases into hostile relations. The condition of the Sogdian Dahai especially deteriorated during the reign of the Bactrian king Diodotos I, and after the reign of Evtidemos I (225 BC) it became hopeless. An important impetus for their migration to the eastern shores of the Amu Darya was the call for help from King Arshak I, the leader of the Apars tribe. After the first unsuccessful attempt to conquer Parthia, the latter faced the task of expanding its social base, which, in fact, he could only do by resettling kindred Dahai tribes. The resettlement of the Sogdian Dahai, or, as Justinian calls them, “the ones expelled from Scythia” to the “country opposite to Areia” began gradually, and most of them settled here after 217 BC, the period when Arshak I conquered Parthia for the second time. After more than a century of separation, the two parts of the Dahai Union reunited again, but in new administrative and political realities, under the royal rule of Arshak I, the leader of the Apars. The immigration of the Xanthi and the Pissurs sharply increased the military potential of Arshak I, due to which he not only conquered Hyrcania in a short time, but also opposed the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. On the other hand, participation in the Arsacid State formation and the Dahai’s dominance preservation over the population of Parthia and Hyrcania, provided the tribal lider clans of Xanthi and the Pissurs with the right and opportunity to claim a high position in the newly created socio-political system of the Arsacid State.

Rabana-Merquly was a major regional centre of the Parthian era in the central Zagros highlands. This article explores the hypothesis that the Rabana intramural settlement was in part a ‘sanctuary’ devoted to the ancient Persian water goddess Anahita, based upon extensive architectural augmentations around an ephemeral waterfall, combined with the nearby construction of a probable fire altar. Two jar burials excavated in 2022 inside an adjacent building show this complex also functioned as a mausoleum. Carbon-14 dating of these cremation deposits supports occupation of the site during the second to first centuries B.C. Twin rock reliefs at the entrances to Rabana-Merquly indicate that the fortress was likely associated with the ruling dynasty of Adiabene, a vassal kingdom of the Parthian (or Arsacid) Empire in north-east Mesopotamia. A further link to Natounissarokerta/Natounia on the Kapros is suggested by the iconography of that city's coinage, which features an obverse image of a goddess, potentially a hybrid representation of Anahita-Tyche.

The Bulgarians appeared in the Caucasus in the 1st century AD or under the first rulers of the Arsacid dynasty in Armenia. Armenian chroniclers report that the “country of the Bulgarians” was situated in the gorges of the Caucasus. Some Syrian chroniclers note that the Bulgarians lived behind the Caspian Gates (e.g. Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor), while others (e.g. Michael the Syrian) claim that the Bulgarians/Puguri lived behind the Torah Gates, which got its name from the city of Caspia, nowadays the town of Kaspi in Georgia. Thus, it becomes clear that the Torah Gates of Michael the Syrian and the Caspian Gates of Pseudo-Zacharias are one and the same thing – the Darial Gorge. Due to superficial knowledge of the Caucasus’s historical geography, the Torah Gates are identified with the Chor/Tsor or Derbent Pass in historiography. The Chor Pass cannot be identified with Derbent, but with the Alazani Valley or Ptolemy’s Albanian Gates. The Ashkharatsuits (or “Ancient Armenian geography”) also reports that the Bulgarians lived in the Western Caucasus, or in the territories of modern Kabardino-Balkaria and North Ossetia.