Maniscalco Bussagli

Il Novissimo Ramusio
27
Mario Bussagli
MUSEO DELLE CIVILTÀ
ISMEO – ASSOCIAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE DI STUDI

SUL MEDITERRANEO E L’ORIENTE
L’eredità umana e scientifica

di Mario Bussagli
a cura di Marco Bussagli, Paola D’Amore, Pierfrancesco Fedi,

Laura Giuliano, Massimiliano A. Polichetti, Filippo Salviati
SCIENZE E LETTERE
Questo volume è stato pubblicato con un contributo di:
- Progetto MIUR “Studi e ricerche sulle culture dell’Asia e dell’Africa:

tradizione e continuità, rivitalizzazione e divulgazione”
- Banca Centro - Credito Cooperativo Toscana-Umbria
TUTTI I DIRITTI RISERVATI
ISBN 9788866872016
© 2021 Scienze e Lettere S.r.l.

Via Malladra, 33 – 00157 Roma
Tel. 0039/06/4817656 – Fax 0039/06/48912574
e-mail: info@scienzeelettere.com
www.scienzeelettere.com
© Museo delle Civiltà

Roma
museocivilta.beniculturali.it
© ISMEO Associazione Internazionale di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l’Oriente

Roma
www.ismeo.eu
Layout by Marco Baldi

INDICE
Prefazione di Adriano V. Rossi .................................................................. IX
Introduzione del Comitato Organizzatore ................................................... 1
Mario Bussagli – Biografia di un umanista fra Oriente e Occidente ........ 11
LA LEZIONE UMANA E SCIENTIFICA DI MARIO BUSSAGLI
Mc. Bussagli, Mario Bussagli, mio padre ................................................. 27

D. Mazzeo, La mia esperienza di allieva del professor Mario Bussagli ... 37
C. Strinati, Ricordi accademici .................................................................. 47
F. Scialpi, Dalla Cultura classica all’Umanesimo asiatico. Incontri di Ci-
viltà nell’opera di Mario Bussagli ....................................................... 51
LE PORTE D’ORIENTE: DAL NILO AL SISTAN
G. Lombardo, Relations between Nomads and Sedentary People in the

Bronze and Iron I Ages in Southern Tajikistan (3rd-1st millennium BC) 75
P. D’Amore, Four Western Iran Roundels from the Legacy of Francesca
Bonardi Tucci ....................................................................................... 85
P. Callieri, Il centro artistico di Kuh-e Khwaja (Sistan, Iran) tra ellenismo
e iranismo ............................................................................................. 95
L. Del Francia Barocas, Tessuti in seta da Akhmim-Panopolis con immagini
di cavalieri e di sovrani: problemi di identificazione e interpretazione 105
INDIA, GANDHĀRA E ASIA CENTRALE TRA ARTE E STORIA
F. Maniscalco, Arachosiaca I: the Rule of Arachosia and the Role of Mega-

sthenes, Seleucus’ Ambassador to Pāṭaliputra, from the Achaemenid De-
feat to the Pact between Seleucus Nicator and Chandragupta Maurya 121
VI
L. Giuliano, Studies in Early Śaiva Iconography (II): Oēšo-Śiva and the

King ...................................................................................................... 161
A. Di Castro, Kashgar – influenze kuṣāṇa, eftalite e sogdiane lungo le vie
della seta ............................................................................................... 197
P. Cannata, Gli Uighur e la conversione al Manicheismo ......................... 213
T. Lorenzetti, Nāyaka Sculptural and Temple Innovation in Seventeenth
Century India: a Political Dimension in Indian Art ............................. 225
R.M. Cimino, Eloji il ‘dio del sesso’ garante della felicità coniugale ....... 237
LA VIA DEL BUDDHA: TRA INDIA, GANDHĀRA E ASIA CENTRALE
M. Spagnoli, Note sui cosiddetti Buddha kapardin di Mathurā ................ 245

A. Santoro, Śrīvatsa: un mahāpuruṣa-lakṣaṇa sul corpo del Buddha ........ 253
L.M. Olivieri, Architetture cultuali urbane kuṣāṇo-sasanidi a Barikot, Swāt 271
A. Lavagnino, Dunhuang cinquant’anni dopo .......................................... 281
LA VIA DEL BUDDHA: IL TIBET TRA PASSATO E PRESENTE
P. Mortari Vergara Caffarelli, Persistenza nel Tibet Buddhista di riti e

costruzioni del periodo animistico e sciamanico ................................. 295
M. Di Mattia, Some Reflections on the Historical and Religious Context
of the A.lci chos.’khor .......................................................................... 309
E. De Rossi Filibeck, Nostalgia del passato: voci e immagini del Tibet
contemporaneo ..................................................................................... 339
DAL ‘PAESE DI MEZZO’ A QUELLO DEL ‘SOL LEVANTE’
F. Salviati, La Cina imperiale delle origini: Osservazioni sui contatti ar-

tistici con l’Occidente e il mondo nomadico nell’arte delle dinastie Qin
e Han .................................................................................................... 353
L. Chandra, N. Sharma, Echoes of the Gupta Idiom in Chinese Art .......... 365
D. Failla, Chinese and Japanese Archaistic Bronzes in the ‘Edoardo Chios-
sone’ Museum of Oriental Art, Genoa .................................................. 383
A. Tamburello, La produzione artistica giapponese come arte di recezione
e sintesi ................................................................................................. 403
EURASIA: ORIENTE E OCCIDENTE

DAL MONDO ANTICO ALLE SOGLIE DEL MONDO MODERNO
M.A. Polichetti, Hints on Religious Symbology ........................................ 423

VII
M.G. Chiappori, La frontiera mobile: il confronto culturale tra l’Occidente

e i nomadi nel Mondo Antico ............................................................... 431
F. Cardini, La luna, la mezzaluna, il quarto (o la falce) di luna ............... 449
V. Serino, Mario Bussagli e il labirinto iniziatico della Cattedrale di Siena 461
H. Tanaka, Leonardo da Vinci e l’Estremo Oriente ................................... 469
EURASIA: IMMAGINI, SCRITTI E IDEE A COLLOQUIO
Mc. Bussagli, Jheronimus Bosch e l’Oriente. Un interesse di padre in figlio 479

M. Del Nunzio, L’Oriente visto da Roma: le vetrate di Guillaume de
Marcillat ............................................................................................... 495
C. Cieri Via, Leonardo da Vinci e la pittura vivente. Immagine e scrittura
fra Oriente e Occidente ........................................................................ 515
P. Fedi, Raffigurazione e modalità di utilizzazione del cristogramma IHS
dal trigramma ‘bernardiniano’ all’emblema della Compagnia di Gesù
in Asia, con particolare riferimento alla produzione giapponese nanban
tra i secoli XVI e XVII ........................................................................... 525
A. Mastroianni, Athanasius Kircher, il Museo del Collegio Romano e l’in-
flusso della cultura orientale nella Roma del ‘600 ............................... 545
Plates ......................................................................................................... 559

FRANCESCO MANISCALCO
Arachosiaca I: the Rule of Arachosia and the Role of Megasthenes,

Seleucus’ Ambassador to Pāṭaliputra, from the Achaemenid Defeat
to the Pact between Seleucus Nicator and Chandragupta Maurya
Since the pact drawn up between Seleucus Nicator and Chandragupta Maurya
(c. 305-303 BC) concerned, among other matters, some frontier areas between the
two nascent empires corresponding to the Easternmost domains of the former
Achaemenid Empire, and since present-day historians have dwelt at length on the
areas yielded and their extent, arriving at assessments so widely accepted as to be
taken as incontestable truths, it will be worth considering what the territories in
question belonged to prior to the meeting between the two sovereigns. Attention
focuses on Arachosia, since Alexandria in Arachosia, present-day Kandahar, was
the provenance of Aśoka’s famous edicts in Greek taken by many scholars to certify
Indian rule over the region as from the pact (Maniscalco 2018). Kandahar was the
residence city of Megasthenes, a mysterious figure sent by Seleucus to the Mauryan
court, presumably subsequent to the pact. Finally, the relations between Arachosia
and the Indian populations living in the Easternmost territories lying along the
course of the river Indus, dating back to the Achaemenid age—the last traces of it
attested by the classical sources during Alexander’s Asian Anabasis—offer indica-
tions serving for closer definition of the extent and role of the lands conceded.
Arachosia from the Defeat of Darius III to the Rise of Seleucus Nicator and
Chandragupta Maurya
The presence of Arachosia and the ‘upper satrapies’ (Briant 1996: 777; Diodo-
rus of Sicily XVIII, 3, 3) further East of it, under Achaemenid rule, is attested by
examination of the armed contingents in the battle of Gaugamela (1 October 331
BC). If we run through the list of peoples who hastened in aid of Darius III (Arrian
An. III, 8), the close connection between the peripheral areas of the Empire and the
people of India stands out. This connection, I believe, is of particular interest since
the Indian territories of Gandhāra, Pañjāb and Sindh at the time of the fall of the
Persian Empire no longer formed part of it (indicative in this respect is the Persians’
ignorance of the actual course of the river Indus).1 With Darius I (522-486 BC), be-
1
The middle and lower course of the Indus, the Easternmost satrapy of the Achaemenid
Empire (Hinduš) would remain part of it until the times of Darius II (425-404 BC). Probably
under Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404-359 BC) it shook off the Persian yoke together with
122 Francesco Maniscalco
tween 510 and 498 BC, the conquest of Pañjāb and Sindh was achieved2—Gandhāra
already being included among the provinces of the kingdom when Darius ascended
to the throne—and the border with India was probably represented by the rivers
Biās-Satlāj-Indus.3 In 326 BC4 Alexander the Great, arrived at the border but did
not cross it. Proof of exit from the Empire is allegedly that as from 327 BC, when
Alexander set off from Bactria South bound to India, there is no attestation of any
encounter with officials of the Achaemenid administration (Tarn 1951: 130). Who
were these Indians, and what territories did they inhabit?
3 βεβοηϑήκεσαν γὰρ Δαρείῳ Ἰνδῶν τε ὅσοι Βακτρίοις ὅμοροι καὶ αὐτοὶ Βάκτριοι
καὶ Σογδιανοί· τούτων μὲν πάντων ἡγεῖτο Βῆσσος ὁ τῆς Βακτρίων χώρας
σατράπης. Εἵποντο δὲ αὐτοῖς Σάκαι Σκυϑικὸν τοῦτο τὸ γένος τῶν τὴν Ἀσίαν
ἐποικούντων Σκυϑῶν οὐχ ὑπήκοοι οὗτοι Βήσσου, ἀλλὰ κατὰ συμμαχίαν τὴν
Δαρείου ἡγεῖτο Μαυάκης· αὐτοὶ δὲ ἱπποτοξόται ἦσαν. 4 Βαρσαέντης δὲ Ἀραχωτῶν
σατράπης Ἀραχωτούς τε ἦγε καὶ τοὺς ὀρείους Ἰνδοὺς καλουμένους. [...] ἐλέγετο
δὲ ἡ πᾶσα στρατιὰ ἡ Δαρείου ἱππεῖς μὲν τετρακισμυρίους, πεζοὶ δὲ ἐς ἑκατὸν
μυριάδας καὶ ἃρματα δρεπανηφόρα διακόσια, ἐλέφαντες δὲ οὐ πολλοί, ἀλλὰ ἐς
πεντεκαίδεκα μάλιστα Ἰνδοῖς τοῖς ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ ἦσαν (An. III, 8, 3-7).
There hastened in aid of Darius the Indians bordering with the Bactrians as well
as the Bactrians themselves and the Sogdians: Bessus, the satrap of the land of
the Bactrians, led them; with them came the Sakas, of Scythian stock, of the
Scythians that live in Asia, not answering to Bessus, but in alliance with Da-
Gandhāra. From the Aristotelian treatise Liber de inundacione Nili (FGr Hist III c: 194-199) we
learn that in the times of Artaxerxes III Ochus (359-338 BC), these satrapies were no longer
subject to him: “i Persiani non solo non possedevano più il bacino dell’Indo, ma non ne ricor-
davano più neppure la geografia, tanto da credere che l’Indo fosse il corso superiore del Nilo”
(Daffinà 1975-1976: 11); cf. Tarn 1948: 86.
2
Sindh and Eastern Pañjāb correspond to Hinduš. For the creation of Darius’ apadāna at
Susa, India, like Arachosia, sent ivory/piruš (a sign of the geographical penetration of Arachosia
into Indian territory; cf. Daffinà 1967: 23-24; De Romanis 1996: 94; Kuhrt-Sherwin White 2007:
492) while Gandhāra provided the timber yakā (Dacrydium nausoriense). In the Imperial sa-
trapies, Hinduš is cited in Herodotus (III, 94, 2), where it is the only one to have annual tribute
in gold rather than silver: three hundred and sixty Euboic gold powder talents, amounting to
about nine tonnes. Not a credible quantity, but there is no reason to doubt the Indian provenance,
nor conjecture that the satrapy had to import it from Siberia; cf. Tarn 1951: 106-108; contra
Daffinà 1975-1976: 7-8.
3
The Indian Achaemenid administration was presumably like that of the rest of the Empire.
From Aramaic script would derive kharosthī, the most ancient Indian script apart from that on
the seals of Muan-jo-daro; cf. Daffinà 1991. The Achaemenid influence in North-East India is
to be seen in the urbanisation; take, for example, the presumed Achaemenid origin (6th century
BC) of Taksaśilā (Taxila), one of the major centres in Northern India between the Indus and the
Jehlam.
4
This is the first certain date in Indian history, apart from two dates of long before. The
first is in an inscription of the Assyrian prince Sennacherib (704-681 BC) of 694 BC, recording
the works carried out on the orders of the sovereign at Ninive and the surroundings; of the build-
ing materials mention is made of sindû (Indian timber). The second is the span of time that saw
the Achaemenid conquest of North-West India; cf. Daffinà 1975-1976: 3-5; 1988: 51-54.
Arachosiaca I: the rule of Arachosia and the role of Megasthenes 123
rius—they were led by Mauakes, they were archers on horseback. 4 Barsaëntes,

satrap of the Arachotoi, led the Arachotoi and also the Indians known as moun-
tain people (τοὺς ὀρείους Ἰνδοὺς). [...] Darius’ army, all together, is said (to have
consisted of) forty thousand horsemen, a million foot soldiers and two hundred
scythed chariots, not many elephants, but the Indians possessed fifteen on this
side of the Indus (Ἰνδοῖς τοῖς ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ).
Arachosia and Bactria formed integral part of the Achaemenid Empire. Under
the command of Bessus, the powerful satrap of Bactria5 was a first category of In-
dians, geographically bordering (ὅμοροι) with Bactria. The Σάκαι were none other
than the Δάαι/Dahā of Xerxes’ inscription at Persepolis and, unknown in the times
of Darius I, they were subdued by Xerxes (486-465 BC).
Tarn (1951: 80) holds that ‘whether they were still subject to Persia when Alex-
ander came cannot be said’ but there is no reason to doubt that they were still sub-
jects of Darius III, entered in the list of his contingents. At the time they were
living on the other side of Syr-daryā (An. III, 28, 8-10), but (Daffinà 1967: 39 n.
7) between the end of the 4th and the mid-3rd century BC they migrated to the steppe
East of the Caspian Sea (Strabo XI, 8, 2). Under the command of Barsaëntes, satrap
of Arachosia (Barxaës in Diodorus Siculus XVII, 74, 1), were the Arachotoi and
another category of Indians called mountain people (ὀρείους).
Having lost Gaugamela, Darius looked to the protection of Bessus who, how-
ever, together with Βαρσαέντης ὁ Ἀραχωτῶν καὶ Δραγγῶν σατράπης, arrested him.6
Rule over Arachosia and Drangiana was, at least under the last of the Achaeme-
nids, in the hands of a single satrap, but was no longer to be so with Alexander’s
new order. Drangiana would be divided from Arachosia and associated with Areia,
while Arachosia was to be united with Gedrosia according to Quintus Curtius
Rufus (Hist. IX, 10, 20) or, as Arrian (An. VI, 27, 1) had it, was to remain alone
under the command of Meno and, on his death, of Sibyrtius.
However, on the evidence of Dexippus, epitomist of the historian of Nico-
media, it seems certain that Sibyrtius maintained control over both regions (Ta
meta Alexandron I, 36 = FGrHist II a: 462, 19; Daffinà 1967: 28-29). Daffinà de-
duced from this that at Gaugamela the Drangianians themselves must have been
under the command of Barsaëntes, although Arrian gives no information about
this. Darius, borne on a chariot for days by Bessus’ men, was fatally wounded by
5
In this phase Bessus was already labouring under suspicion of betrayal (Hist. IV, 6, 4).
Bosworth (1980: 288) holds the explanation to be “a post eventum rationalization.” It is, however,
worth stressing that the information provided by Quintus Curtius Rufus is often more accurate
than that given by Arrian, despite Tarn’s critical remarks (1948: 96) on his reliability.
6
Cf. An. III, 21, 1. Behind the plot was also Nabarzanes, satrap of Ircania, not named by
Arrian. There was also an attempt by Patrones, in command of the rank of four thousand Greek
soldiers headed by Darius III, to dissuade the monarch from following the advice of Bessus—
to arrive at Bactria and temporarily appoint another king—having sensed his unfaithfulness.
Bessus was exposed before the Bactrian troops; the conspirators had deceived the army,
maintaining that the king would commit suicide, but the plot was foiled by the eunuchs’ laments
for Darius who, now aware, awaited his fate, cf. Hist. V, 8-13.
Satibarzanes and Barsaëntes.7 Alexander arrived immediately after the death of

the Great King (An. III, 21, 1; Hist. V, 13, 15-16).
The mountain Indians led by Barsaëntes should be associated with those
whose territory Alexander traversed after the encounter with the Ariaspai-
Euergetae (An. III, 27, 4). Here we have a first direct reference to the territory
of Arachosia. Once the region had been subdued and entrusted to Menon, the
army marched on the Indians close to the Arachotoi, ἐπῆλϑε δὲ καὶ τῶν Ἰνδῶν
τοὺς προσχώρους Ἀραχώταις, advancing through heavy snow which took a se-
vere toll on the soldiers (An. III, 28, 1). Association between these two passages
had never been made as far as I know, but Daffinà conjectured for the ὀρείοι
Ἰνδοί a site on the Sulayman mountains or other—no better defined—heights
“West of the Indus.” The last in the list are the Indians ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ; Daffinà
(1967: 28, n. 5) saw them as “più genericamente, tutti gli abitanti della riva destra
del fiume” in possession of elephants; indeed, the only elephants belonging to
Darius’ army came from these Indians. There is no record of who led them, for
their importance lay solely in the fact of possessing the fifteen elephants. For
now, the reader should bear in mind their geographical position. But what kind
of relations did these Indians have with the satraps they were assigned to at Gau-
gamela? Barsaëntes was the satrap of the reunited territories of Arachosia and
Drangiana, so it is hardly surprising that when Darius was killed he sought refuge
where the royal palace of the Zarangaioi stood.8 Dreading punishment for the
killing of the king, the satrap fled to join the Indians ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ, who,
however, took him prisoner and sent him to Alexander, who condemned him
to death. The Indians reappear, presented with the same expression as at Gau-
gamela. Why did Barsaëntes believe he would find safety among them, what
was the bond between them? Here comes into play the version by Quintus
7
If Barsaëntes was one of the regicides, this cannot be said of Satibarzanes: in fact, the
culprits were all punished while Satibarzanes was confirmed satrap of Areia. Comparison with
Rufus is not decisive since the killers of Darius are not named, except for Bessus (Hist. V, 13,
Bessus…et ceteri facinoris eius participes); cf. Bosworth 1980: 344-345.
8
Alexander arrived at τὰ βασίλεια τῶν Ζαραγγαίων. Bosworth (1980: 358) takes this to be
Phrada-Prophtasia, following Tarn: it is a thorny problem in terms of both identification of the
ʽcapitalʼ of Drangiana and the refoundation accomplished by Alexander. Tarn sees “the old Per-
sian capital of Seistan, known as ʽThe Zarangiansʼ, on or near the Hamun lake” and holds that
“Alexander founded a city at ʽthe Zarangiansʼ to be the capital of Seistan when he detached it
from Arachosia, but the old name, as was usual, came back again; the place was Zarin of Isidore,
Aris of the Peutinger Table whence several roads started, the mediaeval Zarang” (1951: 14 n.
4). Daffinà (1967: 85) objects that the classical authors had no knowledge of this lake. Alexander
does not appear to have founded a city on the site, as Tarn himself recognises (1951: 521) but,
evidently, not Bosworth. Alexander separated Drangiana from Arachosia and joined Drangiana
to Areia. I agree with Daffinà (1967: 89-96) that “la capitale della satrapia unita di Areia-
Drangiana sarà stata certamente Alessandria d’Areia, la cui posizione strategica era insostituibile.
Se infine si crede che la reggia degli Zarangaioi, l’antica capitale della Drangiana, sorgesse
sull’Hāmūn-i Hilmand o nei suoi pressi si potrà identificarla con Zarin, ma non con Phrada-
Prophtasia.” Phrada-Prophtasia corresponds to Phra/Farah, while Zarin rose on the delta of the
Helmand (Fraser 1996: 109-131).
Curtius Rufus.9 Alexander was about to cross the border of the kingdom of
Porus (Hist. VIII, 13):
3 Iam Hydaspen Alexander superare decreuerat, cum Barzaentes, defectionis

Arachosiis auctor, uinctus trigintaque elephanti simul capti perducuntur, op-
portunum aduersus Indos auxilium: quippe plus in beluis quam in exercitu spei
ac uirium illis erat. 4 Samaxus quoque, rex exiguae partis Indorum, qui Bar-
zaenti se coniunxerat, uinctus adductus est. 5 Igitur transfuga et regulo in cus-
todiam, elephantes autem Taxili traditis ad amnem Hydaspen peruenit, in cuius
ulteriore ripa consederat transitu prohibiturus hostem.
3 Alexander had already decided to cross the Hydaspes, when Barsaëntes, in-
stigator of the revolt of the Arachosians, was led bound and, captured like him
thirty elephants, useful help against the Indians since their hope and strength
lay more in the animals than in the army. 4 Also Samaxus, king of a small part
of the Indians, who was an ally of Barsaëntes, was led in shackles. 5 Thus, fugi-
tive and petty king (left) in custody, and the elephants consigned to Taxiles
(Alexander) arrived at the Hydaspes, on the opposite bank of which (Porus) had
taken a position to prevent the enemy from passing.
We have now come to June-July, 326 BC, with Alexander about to clash with
Porus. Barsaëntes sought refuge with the Indians furthest from Alexander’s reach,
on the right side of the Indus. The consignment of elephants was important; in fact,
they were in the possession of the peoples dwelling by the course of the Indus.
Once Barsaëntes and Samaxus had been condemned to death, the defeated Porus
was left to the government and peace was brought to the region, for the old strife
with Taxiles, his neighbouring sovereign, was settled by Alexander.10 The army
made its way Southwards, in part under the leadership of Craterus—who would
separate from it and, through the Bolan pass, via Arachosia, traverse the Iranian
plateau as far as Babylon—in part with the fleet that Taxiles and Porus had com-
bined their efforts to create. The troops penetrated into the lands of the Sibi (Hist.
IX, 4, 1) at the confluence of the Hydaspes (Jehlam) with the Akesines (Chānab).
The bordering area, on the lower course of the Hydraotes (Rāvī), was home to the
Sudraci and Malli, whose army initially set up staunch resistance to the Greeks.
The Malli/Malloi/Mālava11 were an arāstraka people,12 “privi di re costituivano
quella sorta di repubbliche che Pāṇini chiama sangha” (Daffinà 1975-1976: 22).
9
The episode of Barsaëntes’ flight had already been recounted (Hist. VI, 6, 36): Barzaentes,
sceleris in regem suum particeps Bessus: is suppliciorum, quae meruerat, metu profugit in
Indiam.
10
Cf. Hist. IX, 3, 22: relations between the rāja had been consolidated with a bond of
kinship imposed by Alexander.
11
Cf. Hist. IX, 4, 15: Inde uentum est in regionem Sudracarum Mallorumque, quos alias
bellare inter se solitos tunc periculi societas iunxerat.
12
Cf. Daffinà 1975-1976: 22. The kingdoms of Abisares and Porus showed administrative
divisions, for the sources speak of nomarchoi—prefects, roughly speaking, governors of the
provinces (An. V, 8, 3; V, 18, 2).
Like most of the peoples of Pañjāb and Sindh, they were considered to be au-
tonomous. The Sudraci and Malli were to send ambassadors, and Alexander would
accept a tribute (Hist. IX, 7, 14) quod Arachosiis utraque natio pensitabat, “which
both the peoples were already paying to the Arachosians.” According to Vogelsang
(1992: 227), this shows “the Arachosian links with the Indian lands to the East,
and sheds some light on the political and fiscal relationships in Eastern Iran at the
time of Alexander.”
The authority of the satrap of Arachosia over the Indians on the West bank of
the Indus, payment of a tribute to the Arachosians, and the fact that Barsaëntes did
not seek refuge among the mountain Indians—included by Arrian among his sub-
jects—but among the Indians of the plains, all point to a bond between Arachosia
and these areas. Probably, I believe, Samaxus, rex exiguis partis Indorum, belonged
to the peoples ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ who, fearing the Greek advance, rid themselves
of their inconvenient guest together with the regulus who came to terms with him.
Vogelsang clearly brings out the role of the satrapy of Arachosia, frontier be-
tween the Iranian world and the Indian East. The tribute to the Arachosians evi-
dences the imperial practice of levying taxes. According to Vogelsang (1992:
228-230), the influence over Pañjāb was due to the authority of Arachosia in the
area of Multān and consequently extended along the route that leads from Kandahar,
via Loralai, to the lower Pañjāb. This would associate Arachosia with Herodotus’
seventeenth fiscal district, the Ethiopians of Asia and the Parikanioi (I, 101, 1; III,
92, 5; III, 94, 1; VII, 68, 86).
The hypothesis merits a brief digression to see what lies behind it. To begin
with, it is worth noting that there being no mention of Arachosia in Herodotus,
and given that Herodotus’ fiscal districts may or may not have included geograph-
ically contiguous peoples, there can be no certainty about this connection with the
Parikanioi (whose location remains a mystery) and the Ethiopians of Asia.13
13
The list of νομοί (III, 90, 94) reflects the administration and the ἔϑνεα under Artaxerxes
I (464-424/423 BC); cf. Daffinà 1967: 25. Ἄριοι and Σαράγγαι were sent respectively by the sa-
traps of Haraiva and Zrankā. The former, under the command of Sisamnes (VII, 66), were
equipped with bows similar to those of the Medes (VII, 61-62), while their other weapons were
like those of the Βάκτριοι who wore headgear, again, similar to that of the Medes. The Arioi and Bak-
trioi adopted the τιάρα or πίλος ἀπαγής (floppy cap) of the Medes. The Σαράγγαι, under Ferendates,
armed with Median lances and bows, were distinguished by their colourful clothing and knee-
length footwear (VII, 67). Immediately after comes mention of the Paktues and Parikanioi
σισυρνοφόροι ʽwith goatskins.’ The absence of the Harauvatiš is seen by some scholars as only
apparent (Markwart 1895-1896; Weissbach 1934; contra Daffinà 1967: 27; 1974-1975: 37; cf.
also Gnoli 1967: 47.), the lacuna being accounted for with the ethnonym Θαμαναῖοι. The term
occurs in III, 93, 2 e in III, 117, 1. In the first occurrence the Θαμαναῖοι constitute the fourteenth
district together with Σαράγγαι, Σαγάρτιοι, Οὔτιοι, Μύκοι and the inhabitants of the islands ἐν τῇ
Ἐρυτρῇ θαλάσσῃ. They paid a yearly tribute of six hundred talents. As we know, computation of
the tributes took in the same νομός diverses ἔϑνεα, allocation being most often based on fiscal
parameters and only rarely on geographical criteria. Such is the case of νομός IV= Cilicia (III,
90, 3); of XII = Bactria (III, 92, 2); and of XX = India (III, 94, 2). Often Herodotus unwittingly
confused nomós and satrapy, and mention of Θαμαναῖοι close to Σαράγγαι therefore neither helps
nor hinders decodification of the ethnonym. The second occurrence is of greater interest (III,
I am inclined, rather, to the hypothesis of Zoroastrian origins in Sistan (Gnoli

1967; 1980) correlated with the existence of the Ariaspai, whose dominion pro-
bably bordered on Arachosia14 and the basin of the Hilmand and its tributaries as
117, 1): Θωμαναίοι. Associated with the Σαράγγαι, together with Ὑρκανίοι e Χοράσμιοι, they
were located at the edge of a plain enclosed by mountains where the other populations also dwelt.
Once it belonged to them, but ever since the Persians came to power, Herodotus explains, it had
been in the possession of the sovereign. In the plain flows the river Ἄκης, providing constant ir-
rigation for the entire area (authors arguing for the so-called ʽGreater Chorasmiaʼ, propose identi-
fication with the Āmū-daryā). Daffinà (1974-1975: 38) held the Akēs to be “un fiume
immaginario, nel senso che rappresenta contemporaneamente diversi fiumi della geografia reale
che Erodoto ha astrattamente fusi in un unico corso d’acqua, come nel caso dell’Arasse.” The
monarch controlled the course with five dams, precluding use to those who had once been ac-
customed to make use of it. When, wasting away for lack of water, these populations appealed
to the king bemoaning their condition, he granted temporary supply of the flow on payment. The
Achaemenids monopolised the water resources and achieved notable works of canalisation, res-
ervoirs, dams and irrigation, with taxes on the water. Daffinà (1974-1975: 38) remarks “che il
sistema d’irrigazione introdotto dagli Achemenidi in Asia centrale era insieme uno strumento di
progresso economico (in quanto consentiva di porre a cultura terreni altrimenti non coltivabili)
e uno strumento di pressione politica.” Only the Thomanaioi cannot be identified. The Choras-
mioi/Uvaràzmiya were located by Hecataeus (Müller 1841-1855, I, Hecataei Fragmenta fr. 173:
12), East of the Parthoi/Parthava. The Hyrkanioi/Varkāna dwelt a long way Southeast of the
Southern shore of the Caspian Sea. The Sarangai were in Drangiana/Zrankā. Markwart (1895-
1896), Weissbach (1934) and Herzfeld (1931-32: 79-80; 1938: 128; cf. Sarre, Herzfeld 1910: 27
n. 4) trace the Thamanaioi to the Avestan Sāma through the Old Persian *ϑāmāna. In the Avestan
mythological cycles, Sāma is the father of Kәrәsāspa whose legend actually unfolds between
Drangiana and Arachosia. Daffinà (1967: 27) pointed out the uncertainty of the conjecture, while
Gnoli (1967: 48), albeit appreciative of Daffinà’s cautiousness, recognised that: “se non fosse
per le fonti greche non avremmo alcuna notizia degli Ariaspai tribù stanziata nella parte sud-
orientale della Drangiana, così come, per l’Arachōsia, nulla sapremmo dell’esistenza dei Tha-
manaioi.” However that may be, the absence of Arachosia from the Histories does not mean that
it was lost under Artaxerxes I. Administration of the region was an integral part of the Achaeme-
nid Empire, as can be inferred from the dispatch to Persepolis of the so-called haoma utensils.
The haoma utensils were discovered in the treasury of Persepolis in the years 1936-1938. The
chronology is based on the order of succession of the officials appointed, not of the sovereigns
reigning, and on this evidence we can date the inscriptions to 479/478-436/435 BC, and so be-
tween the reign of Xerxes (486-465 BC) and that of Artaxerxes I (465-425 BC); cf. Briant 1996:
434-435. Moreover, on the evidence of the Persepolis inscription attributed to Artaxerxes II Mne-
mon (404-359/358, BC) or Artaxerxes III Ochus (359/358-338/337 BC) we know that reference
was still being made to Zrankā (Sarangai) and Harauvatiyā (Arachōtoi); cf. Kent 1953: 155-156.
According to Olmstead (1948: 524), Haraiva, Zrankā and Harauvatiš remained faithful to the
Great King to the last. Bickerman (1966: 89-90) postulated a situation of semi-independence for
the Easternmost provinces, whose army was recruited locally, and this was not ruled out by Daf-
finà (1967: 28).
14
On the occasion of the reconquest of Bactria and the contemporaneous expedition against
the tribes of the Sakā, Cyrus II the Great (559-530 BC) traversed and annexed Drangiana, i.e.
the Helmand basin, and the valley of Argandāb, Arachosia (Briant 1996: 50, 79; Kuhrt 2007:
48-49). Having defeated the Medes, Cyrus set out on an expedition across the desert. Straying
from the route, the sovereign and army found themselves in dreadful circumstances, to the extent
that the men began to feed on the bodies of their companions. It was then that the Ariaspai inter-
vened, sending the leader no fewer than thirty thousand wagons full of wheat. Saved from certain
death, Cyrus exempted them permanently from payment of the tribute and changed their name
far as the Southernmost areas of the lake of Gaud-i Zira. The region of the
Haētumant/Hetymandros/Hilmand (or Helmand) and the endorheic basin of
Hāmūn-i Hilmand—i.e. the final part of its course which, according to the evidence
of Aristobulus of Cassandria (FGrHist II b: 777, 20-24 = An. IV, 6, 6), dispersed
into the scorching sands of the desert—emerge in identification of the places of
Avestan geography.
Gnoli (1980: 135-136) locates the Ariaspai as far as Bust (Qal’a Bist), the
ancient Βιύτ where “amnis Erymandus [= Hilmand] praefluens Parabasten15
[˂*ΠΑΡΑΒΗΣΤΗΝ = παρὰ Βήστην] Arachosiorum” (NH VI, 92; cf. Daffinà
1967: 98).
Alexander immediately made his way into Arachosia (An. III, 27, 6), leaving
behind him the territory of the Ariaspai, which stretched Northeastwards as far
as the confluence of the Argandāb with the Helmand, the Western border of
Arachosia, roughly the territory of Bust (Gnoli 1980: 139).16 Bust was the home-
to Evergetai (Εὐεργέτας, Diodorus Siculus XVII, 81). The honorary title of b̔ enefactors̕ entailed
a privilege at a fiscal level which the victorious Alexander would renew: “for the favours their
forefathers had granted to Cyrus, Alexander honoured this people, also because he had learnt
that their system of government was not like that of the other barbarians of these parts but, as
they boasted, founded on justice, like the best of the Greeks; and he set them free, and added to
their territory what they claimed of the lands of their neighbours; and they did not claim much”
(An. III, 27, 5). According to the Ἀριάσπαι (An. III, 27, 4-6; Strabo XV, 724; Hist. VII, 3; Justin
XII, 5, 9), Arrian was the only one who did not confuse the etymon with Ἀριμασποί. The latter
refers to the people of the ʽOne-eyedʼ, dwelling to the North of the Scythians and the Issedones.
Associated with the Arimaspoi, guardians of the gold together with the Grifons, was Aristeas of
Proconnesus, whose wonderful travels were recounted by Herodotus—in the North of the Hy-
perboreans (IV, 13), the visit, possessed by Apollo, to the Issedones (IV, 16, 1), and at Metaponto
under the guise of crow (IV, 15, 2) comrade of the god—and to whom he attributes composition
of the epic poem Ἀριμάσπεα (IV, 14), a few meagre fragments of which remain in the treatise
Περί ὕψους (10, fr. 1 Kinkel = fr. 7. Bolton). Many drew upon Aristeas—Hellanicus of Mytilene,
Theopompus of Chios, Damastes, Pausanias and Ioannes Tzetzes; cf. Daffinà 1974-1975: 15-
18. For Diodorus, the text was corrected by Goukowsky (1976: 112-113, 232) as Ἀριμασποί, an
emendation due to commentators who, ignoring Arrian, followed Herodotus, misinterpreting the
geographical location of the Ariaspai people, inhabiting the lower basin of the Hetymandros,
An. IV, 6, 6: Ἐτύμανδρος, ὃς δι’Εὐεργετῶν ῥέει. The confusion might even have arisen in Diodo-
rus (Gnoli 1967: 35-38). According to Bolton (1962: 191 n. 2) the Arimaspi were Euergetai by
virtue of the aid given to the Argonauts, following a legend handed down by Stephanus of By-
zantium s.v Εὐεργέται, Εὐεργέτας translating the Iranian urvaϑa from Herodotus’ ὀροσάγγαι (VIII,
85). According to Gnoli (1967: 48 n. 2), the etymon derives from the concept of royalty, and
anušiya, ʽfollower,’ associated with the I̔ mmortals̕ of the Greek historians, the Greek being based
on a false etymology anaoša ʽimmortalʼ.
15
Para is the transposition of the preposition in the Greek text used by the naturalist. It in-
dicates the proximity of Beste to the confluence of the Argandāb and Helmand. Pliny erroneously
took it to be an integral part of the name of the city. Towards the end of the 10th century, the
Arab historian Muqqadasi recorded very precise information about Bust: “the inhabitants of
Bust drink the water of the river Hirmid (i.e. Hilmand); the other river is called Khardroy
(Argandāb). Their confluence occurs at a farsakh from the city (about 5 km). At the point of
confluence on the Hirmid there is a landing stage for boats” (Bernard 1974: 171-172 n. 3).
16
In the Abān Yašt (XIX Yašt), the Vourukaša, the primaeval Cosmic Ocean is recognised
as Hāmūn-i Hilmand. The Avestan Nāydāg is identified as Šīla, the Kanal-Fluss, that branch of
land of Saēna, son of Ahūm.stut (Sēn ī Ahūm-stutān ī Bustīg). Saēna, together

with Vīštāspa, was the first disciple of Zaraϑuštra, becoming satō.aēϑrya, i.e.
master and head of a hundred disciples. From book VII of the Dēnkard we learned
that Zoroaster took on form in bodily being, Sagistān pad sar, on the borders of
Sagistān (Gnoli 1980: 135-136). The dominion of the Ariaspai coincided with the
Σακαστάνη (Σταϑμοὶ Παρϑικοὶ 18 = FGrHist II c: 779-782 = Müller 1841-1855,
I: 244-254, 253-254; the text established by Müller is in Schoff 1914) on the
border between Southeastern Iran and Afghanistan. Bιύτ (ΣΠ 19, it is probable
the amendment of Βιύτ as Βύστ or *Βίστ, cf. Daffinà 1967: 99), was the first stage
of the itinerary followed by Isidore of Charax17 to Arachosia, immediately after
Σακαστάνη. It extended for 63 σχοῖνοι (c. 350 km), counted as from Band-i Sīstān
Northeastwards up to a about 40 km South of the point where the Argandāb flows
into the Helmand. The region embraces six villages and five cities including the
capital, ΣΙΓΑΛ, amended by Daffinà (1967: 98) as*ΣΙΓΑΝ, which would translate
as *Σιγὰνπόλις, instead of Σιγαλ πόλις, thus*Siγanpolis, i.e. city of the Seγan (=
Sakā) “denominazione quanto mai appropriata per la capitale della Sakastanē.”
Viewing these data in relation to Diodorus Siculus and Arrian on the descent of
Cyrus and Alexander, Gnoli’s conjecture on the Ariaspai inhabiting these places
seems very reasonable.
Isidore, or his source, also used another name to identify Σακαστάνη, namely
Παραιτακηνή, which for the time being we will bear in mind. In the Δραγγιανής
ϑέσις of Claudius Ptolemy we come across a city, Ἀριάσπη (ΓὙ VI, 19, 5), whose
etymon can be traced to reconstruction of an Old Iranian *aryāspa. Shortly before
we read (VI, 19, 3):
the watercourse thanks to which Gaud-i Zira receives the waters of the Hāmūn-i Hilmand when
it is in flood. Associated with Gaud-i Zira is the Avestan Lake Frazdānu, on the banks of which
Vištāspa, defender of Zaraϑuštra, propagated the doctrine. In its course from the Northeastern
region of the Hinduš as far as the delta (Hamun), the Haētumant flows impetuously, bearer of
the xᶹarᵊnah, full of blazing splendour; cf. Gnoli 1980: 129-135; 1967: 35-39.
17
Probably Isidore of Charax was coeval with Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD). “Il terminus
post quem è il 26 a.C., l’anno al quale risale quel crudele episodio della guerra tra Phraatēs IV
e Tēridatēs II al quale si accenna in Stathmoi Parthikoi 1. Il terminus ante quem è il 77 d.C.,
l’anno che Plinio il vecchio consegnò a Tito la Naturalis Historia, delle cui fonti una è Isidoro”
(Daffinà 1967: 5). For the chronology of the Parthian itinerary which Isidore made use of, and
survey of which Tarn conjectures to have been made by Greeks including Apollodorus of Ar-
temita, “there is no reasonable doubt that Apollodorus belonged to the flourishing period of the
reign of Mithridates II, somewhere round about 100 b.C., the period that saw the Parthian survey
of their empire” and “Isidore is reproducing part of an official survey of the Parthian empire
made in the great period of Mithridates II, say 110-100 b.C., after Parthia had acquired Merv
(by 115 b.C.)” (1951: 45, 54-55). It is hardly likely that Margianē, as also Areia and Traxianē,
was taken from the Scythians during the reign of Mithrādates II (120-88 BC); more probably
they were reconquered between 87 and 80 BC by Orōdēs I (88-38 BC). Thus, considering that
Margiana and Areia were not included in the itinerary as Parthian lands,—and at the same time
having verified what was the only certain reference in the chronology of Apollodorus, 53 BC,
the year of the Battle of Carrhae, of which Apollodorus seems to show no knowledge (Gabba
1966: 53)—Tarn’s assertion is to be doubted (Daffinà 1967: 72-73).
καὶ κατέχουσι τὰ μὲν πρὸϛ τῇ Ἀρείᾳ Δαράνδαι, τὰ δὲ πρὸϛ τῇ Ἀραχωσίᾳ Βάκτριοι,

ἡ δὲ μεταξὺ χώρα καλεῖται Τατακηνή.
The Darandai held the lands bordering with Areia, while the Baktrioi inhabit
the lands on the frontier with Arachosia, while the region halfway (between
these) is called Tatakēnē.
Bagrow (1945; 1947) has established that the text is based on a Byzantine re-
working of the 10th or 11th century; in fact, the denominations of the populations of
the region of Tatakēnē were misspelt by the mediaeval copyists (Markwart 1901:
36; Thomas 1906: 197; Hermann 1920; 1932; Daffinà 1967: 18-20). Ptolemaic
Tatakēnē is to be seen as Sakastanē or Paraitakēnē (Daffinà 1967: 19). Since Tatakēnē
offers no evidence as to which of the two etymons was originally used by Ptolemy,
it is impossible to ascertain which was the region of the lower course of the Hilmand
known to the geographer. Tatakēnē being a late creation due to corruption of the text
handed down, Tarn’s assertion that (1951: 95) “under the Euthydemid sub-king, Ar-
achosia formed one satrapy and Seistan at least two Zarangiane, the Hamun lake
country, and Paraitakene, the lower Helmand, afterwards Sacastane; there may have
been a third, Tatakene” is to be rejected. Although Isidoro did not provide the names
“of all the Parthian satrapies,” we have in any case no evidence of the geographical
location of the region except the correspondence with Paraitakēnē/Sakastanē, which
remains “l’ipotesi geograficamente più plausibile” (Daffinà 1967: 21). Describing
the formation of the names of the eparchies of the Seleucid age, Tarn states that
(1951: 4) “the eparchy names had many sources; they might be taken from a city
name, as Gabiene, Rhagiane; from a tribal name, as Paraitakene.” He holds that the
etymon Paraitakēnē existed before the Parthian period, but there can be no certainty
considering that the first attestation dates back to the list of staging posts by Isidorus,
although the Parthian denominations normally followed the previous Seleucid ones.18
The Scottish scholar (1930: 124 n. 2) associates Παραιτακηνή with the people of the
Παρικάνιοι (Herodotus, III, 92), assuming both that they settled on the lower course
of the Hilmand and that the name of the area derived from them.
18
The material of the Hellenistic geographers “proveniva dalle annotazioni ufficiali delle
monarchie ellenistiche, ed in particolare dai loro itinerari amministrativi, fondati alla loro volta
su consimili itinerari persiani. Questi ultimi, chiamati dai Greci σταϑμοὶ, erano stati certamente
registrati, corretti, ellenizzati, prima dai noti bematistae di Alessandro, poi da quelli dei Seleucidi,
dei Tolomei e dei sovrani delle monarchie anatoliche’ and, Rostovtzeff continues, ‘deve
ricordarsi che il solo itinerario pervenutoci, derivato senza dubbio quasi direttamente dagli
itinerari d’Alessandro, fu compilato sotto il primo Impero romano da Isidoro di Charax, e si
fondava certamente sugli itinerari ufficiali partici, succeduti a quelli dei re ellenistici. Gli itinerari
dei Seleucidi, sebbene derivati dai persiani, erano indubbiamente più completi ed accurati di
questi ultimi, e compilati in nuovo stile greco, in quanto dovevano servire ad amministratori ed
ufficiali greci” (1966, III: 116). According to Tarn, the original Parthian of Isidore (1930: 118),
with the discrepancies in measurements between Eratosthenes, Strabo, and Pliny basing his
account on Isidore, “might reflect differences between the Seleucid and Parthian surveys” (1951:
55); thus the name Παραιτακηνή already belonged to the Seleucid eparchic nomenclature (1930:
130-131).
However, Markwart (1895-1896; 1901; 1938: 75) and Daffinà (1967: 18-19)
argue a common Iranian origin for both names, from *paraitaka, ʽwatered.ʼ Mark-
wart noted a peculiarity of the areas thus named—a wealth of waters and canal
systems.
Tanto la Paraitakēnē del Pārs, quanto quelle dell’Āmū-daryā e del basso Hil-
mand avevano la caratteristica di essere solcate da corsi d’acqua e da canali ar-
tificiali [...] il tratto di territorio tra l’ansa meridionale dell’Hilmand e il Gawd-i
Zira si chiama, ancor oggi, Rūdbār, che propriamente significa ʽportatore (bār)
di fiume (rūd)ʼ, ma che può considerarsi la continuazione neopersiana di
Paraitakēnē. (Daffinà 1967: 19).
Thus the origin of the place-name reflects the geomorphological rather than
ethnographic aspect. Postulating one and the same origin for the two etymons, there
is no longer any need for the reciprocal derivation. In I, 101, 1 the Παρικάνιοι are
included amongst the γένεα of the Medes. In III, 92, 5 and III, 94, 1 they belong to
the 10th district together with the Ortokoribantoi and appear in the census with the
Αἰϑίοπεσ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Ἀσίης, with a tribute of four hundred talents, in the seventeenth
nomós. In the rank of Xerxes (VII, 68) they are compared with the Πάκτυεϛ and
defined σισυρνοφόροι, “wearers of goatskin cloaks.”19 The goatskin cloaks suggest
a mountain location rather than the torrid area of Rūdbār. Bernard (1972: 171-176)
correlates the place-name prkn—incised on the haoma utensils of Persepolis, and
connected with the route leading from or crossing Arachosia—with the Parikanioi
19
On the evidence of Strabo (XI, 13, 6 and 12, 4; XV, 3, 12; XVI, 1, 18), who defined the
Παραιτακηνοί as ὀρεινοί ʽmountain people,’ Lassen (1849 II: 363 n. 2) interpreted Παραιτακηνή
as Bergland, to be followed soon after by Müller (1841-1855 I: XCIII). Identification has been
proposed for the mountainous area between Bam to the North-West and Ğiruft to the South-east
as Kirman: “essi sarebbero gli antichi abitatori del Kūh-i Pāričān” (Daffinà 1974-1975: 58). The
name of Paraitakenoi, one of the tribes mentioned by Herodotus ruled by Deiokes, the Median
King (8th-7th century BC), in Northwestern Persia (1, 101) has been associated to the dinasty of
Pāratarājas under the Parthian control (since 3rd-2nd century BC) until “the time when the Kushan
empire was at its zenith” (Tandon 2006: 37), while Falk’s opinion is that the coins of the
Pāratarājas “can be dated rougly to the beginning of the Christian era, extending into the 1st, and
possibly into the 2nd century AD. The fall of the Pāratarājas may be linked to the rise of the
Kuṣāṇas” (2007: 171). In its historical references to the Pāratas, Tandon, following Mukherjee
(1972: 35-52, identifies them with the Median Paraitakenoi, with the Paraitakenoi subject to the
Parthians, with the inhabitants of Sakastane of Isidore of Charax, and also with the Paraitakenoi
“as among the barbarians who murdered Antiochus III Magnus during his attempted raid to
plunder the shrine of Bel in the Elymean Hills” (Tandon 2006: 30-31). Rapson (1905: 789), the
first publisher of the Pāratarājas’ coins, observed these are found mainly in the Loralai area of
the Quetta region, “despite early reports about findspots along the Jhelam” (Falk 2007: 171).
Senior (2001: 129), who has presented the greatest number of Pāratarājas’ coins, has observed
that “Loralai is located at the junction of the trade routes from Arachosia to the Indus and from
Gandhara to Sindh” (Falk 2007: 171). Falk (2007: 171) recalls that “the coins issued by this di-
nasty are easy to recognize since they invariably show a large swastika in the centre of the re-
verse. There are silver and copper coins, inscribed in Brāhmī, in Kharoṣṭhī, or in both scripts.
The names of the kings are different in each script-group.”
people (1972: 172): “Le rapprochement entre prkn et les Parikanoi d’Hérodote s’im-
pose […] les testes anciens permettent de donner à ce peuple une localisation géo-
graphique parfaitament compatible avec la mention de l’Arachosie.”
The Parikanioi were associated with the Caspian horsemen (VII, 86) inhabiting
[…] le Pendjab méridional autour de Kaspàpyros-Multān [...] Comme, de l’avis

de tous, les Mykes doivent être placés dans le Makran et les Paktyens occu-
paient les monts Suleiman […] le territoire des les Parikaniens ainsi délimité
par la plaine de l’Indus à l’Est, les monts Suleiman au Nord et le Makran à
l’Ouest, ne peut être que la Gédrosie antique, l’actuel Baluchistan, limitrophe
de l’Arachosie (1972: 172).
In III, 92, 2, the Caspians are in the eleventh νομός with Pantimathoi, Pausikoi
and Dareitai, for a tribute of two hundred talents yearly. A location far to the East
has been proposed (Daffinà 1974-1975: 57-59). They, too, appear in the census of
the fifteenth νομός (III, 93, 3) together with the Sakā. With such ill-matching data
it is hard to understand their position. Bernard bases his hypothesis on identity be-
tween Kaspàpyros/Kaspàtyros (Daffinà 1975-1976: 2-4; Κασπάπυρος, πόλις
Γανδαρικὴ; cf. Müller 1841-1855, I, Hecataei Fragmenta 179: 12 = fr. 295,
FGrHist, I a: 38) and Multān (Foucher 1942-1947: 194-198), but it is by no means
certain. The expedition of Scylax of Carianda (IV, 44) − promoted by Darius for
exploration and conquest of the middle and lower course of the Indus, Hinduš −
was undertaken “partiti da Kaspàtyros [...] navigando verso l’aurora e il levar del
sole fino al mare” (Daffinà 1975-1976: 3-5).
The river travelled down was probably the Kābul or Svāt, the direction of their
course tallying with the historical account (Markwart 1896: 246 n. 3). Thus Kas-
pàtyros should be present-day Puskalāvatī, and not Multān (Vogelsang 1985: 85-
87). Finally, there is no certain correspondence between the Maciyā, dwelling in
Maka, and the Μύκοι, nor is there any certainty that the Mykoi themselves came
from Makrān (Daffinà 1967: 23 n. 13-14). These identifications are, let me repeat,
conjectural, and do not exclude any others.
Let us return to the relations between Arachosia and the Eastern populations
present in its domain, emblematically represented by the ‘Indian’ flight of Bar-
saëntes. The meeting between Seleucus and Chandragupta was to occur no more
than twenty years later, which implies yet further justification for use of these data
for closer definition of the territory handed over. The Indian territories subdued
and subsequently inherited by Seleucus were organised in five satrapies, and Alex-
ander placed his trusted men at the head of each of them. The first, consisting of
the Hindūkuš mountain range and the valley of Kābul, was entrusted to Oxyartēs,
satrap of Bactria and father of Alexander’s consort, Roxana. The second, consisting
of the territories between the rivers Kūnar and Indus, came under Nicanor. The re-
gion of the Abhisara and the territory between Indus and Hydaspes (Jehlam), as
far as the confluence of the Indus with the Akesines (Chanāb), initially remained
under the rule of Philip, subsequently passing under Eudamus. The vast kingdom
of Porus, between the Hydaspes and the Yphasis (Biās),20 continued to be ruled by
the Indian king. Finally, the territory from the confluence of the Indus with the
Akesines, as far as the area of the Southern shore of the Indus delta, was governed
by Pèithon. Alexander maintained Porus in his position, but with two Macedonians,
Philip and Pèithon, by his side, charged to watch over his actions. In any case, the
attempt to stabilise a frontier that “demeurait précisément plus symbolique que ré-
elle tant elle étant complexe et ambiguë dans le detail de sa structure politique”
(Capdetrey 2007: 44), proved unsuccessful, for it began to fall away only five years
after the death of Alexander.
Eudamus treacherously put Porus to death, took possession of his elephants
and set off to the West; shortly after, Pèithon, too, took the same decision, aban-
doning command of the satrapy he had been entrusted with. These troubled years
for the West, with the Diadochi fighting for succession and Greek rule over India
crumbling, saw the emergence of Chandragupta (Bussagli 1956; 1947; Filliozat
1978). Before dethroning Dhanananda, king of Magadha, his place of origin, he
freed the North West and Sindh from Macedonian rule and numbered among his
first allies Parvataka alias Porus (Tarn 1951: 46). Chandragupta’s deeds—begun
with the support of the Pañjāb Brahmanic circles and the help of mercenaries (cf.
Justin XV, 4, 18: Sandrocottus contractis latronibus Indos ad novitatem regni sol-
licitavit)—constituted the first form of national recovery in the Indian territories
and was to lead to the creation of the Indian Empire in the space of just ten years.
It eventually embraced Magadha, Pañjāb, Sindh, Gandhāra and possibly also
Avantī and Surāstra. Around 316 BC (Diodorus Siculus XIX, 48, 1; XIX, 56, 4)
no Indian territory was Greek any longer; four years later, the unifying endeavours
of Chandragupta were also concluded.
The Rise of Seleucus Reconquering the Upper Satrapies
In the attempt to reorganise central power with the Triparadisus agreements

(321 BC), Seleucus was appointed satrap of Babylon (Musti 1989: 678-688), a posi-
tion he held for about five years. In the meanwhile, Antigonus Monophthalmus took
on the rank of στρατηγὸς τῆς βασιλικῆς δυνάμεως and στρατηγὸς τῆς Ἀσίας, militarily
higher than that of the satraps. On the death of Antipater (319 BC), who had wisely
sought to ward off the danger of a conflict which was, however, to last for a score
of years, Antigonus set about the reckoning in Asia. The first to bear the cost was
Eumenes; subsequently, it was Pèithon’s turn. Having also deposed Peucestas—
former satrap of Persia in accordance with the wishes of Alexander—Antigonus set
20
At first Porus had authority over all of Alexander’s Indian conquests, i.e. as far as the
Hyphasis. Subsequently, at Triparadisus (321 BC), his hegemony was limited to the territory on
the two sides of the Indus including the city of Πάτταλα (An. V, 29, 2). The rāja was attributed
with the region παρὰ τὸν Ἰνδὸν ποταμόν since immediately adjacent, παρὰ τὸν Ὑδάσπην was
that of Taxiles (Diodorus Siculus XVIII, 39, 6); cf. Dexippus I, 5 = FGrHist II a: 462, 12-14.
off for Babylon to call on Seleucus to answer for his administration as satrap of the
region. Seleucus responded by fleeing to Ptolemy in Egypt (316 BC).
In 312 BC the defeat suffered in Gaza by Demetrius, son of Antigonus, at the
hands of Ptolemy created conditions for Seleucus’ return to Babylon. Awaiting
Seleucus was a turbulent period of conflict with Nicanor, governor of Media and
Susiana, and indeed with Demetrius himself, but eventually victory crowned his
efforts and he went on progressively extending his dominion. He was no longer
only satrap of Babylon, as Ptolemy may have imagined when he gave him his pro-
tection. What was to become an empire took shape between the Euphrates and the
Caspian Gates. Goukowsky rightly stresses the importance of Apamea, Seleucus’
consort:
[…] sans doute les Orientaux voyaient-ils dans l’epaux d’Apamée celui qui re-
prenderait la politique de Peukestas et d’Alexandre [...] l’Iranienne Apamée,
l’épouse qu’Alexandre lui avait donnée et qu’il n’avait pas repudiée, l’aida pro-
bablement à asseoir son autorité dans ses régions (1978: 125-127).
As Musti points out (1966: 80; 1989: 678-700), the relation with Antigonus
“sul terreno dell’autorità e del potere rimarrà il motivo guida della carriera politica
di Seleuco, fino ad Ipso, e in certa misura anche più tardi.” Having reconquered
Susiana and Media—he had been appointed satrap of the former by Antigonus in
321 BC—Seleucus took on the title of king and turned his attention to the Eastern
satrapies, some of which had already made acts of submission (Appian Συριακή
LIV; Diodorus Siculus XIX, 90-92). As Mazzarino (1956: 172-174) and Musti
(1966: 85) observe, Seleucus’ dominion corresponded to ἄνω Ἀσία, i.e. the upper
satrapies including Arachosia. The distinction between κάτω Ἀσία and ἄνω Ἀσία
would be reflected in the conflict between Seleucus and Antigonus, and only after
Ipsus would Seleucus’ ἄνω Ἀσία, including Mesopotamia and Northern Syria, ad-
vance far as the Mediterranean Sea.
Seleucus’ Descent upon India and the Question of Alexandria Arachosia
A passage in Justin’s epitome (2nd-3rd century AD) of the Historiae Philippicae

of Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus (1st BC-1st AD) offers the first contemporaneous his-
torical account of Indian and non-Indian events (Daffinà 1988: 53); in fact, the
years of the rise of Seleucus correspond to the period in which Chandragupta was
building his kingdom (XV, 4, 20-21)
Sic adquisito regno Sandrocottus ea tempestate, qua Seleucus futurae magni-

tudinis fondamenta iaciebat, Indiam possidebat, cum quo facta pactione Seleu-
cus compositisque in Oriente rebus in bellum Antigoni descendit.
Sandrocottus, having taken over power in the kingdom—in that tempestuous

period during which Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future great-
ness—possessed India; Seleucus, having secured an alliance with him and

settled matters in the East, went to war against Antigonus.
Coming, now, to the agreement, we must consider what lay behind it, and first
of all whether or not there had been a war between Seleucus and Chandragupta.
Bernard (1985: 94-95) holds that—apart from the propaganda of Appian (an author
Bernard consistently distrusts)—there are no traces of battle between Indian and
Greek forces, and thus no historical grounds for it. Coloru (2009: 142) endorses
his conclusion rather more warily:
Seleuco fu costretto a riconoscere il fatto compiuto. La testimonianza di Appiano

a proposito di una presunta invasione dell’India è frutto di propaganda, così come
lo è la fondazione della città di Alexandropolis. Tuttavia il toponimo Alexandro-
polis compare nell’itinerario di Isidoro di Charax, ma è localizzato in Drangiana.
The Italian scholar brings into play the much-debated foundation of Alex-
andropolis by Seleucus and the Σταϑμοὶ Παρϑικοί for the place-name, but let us
begin at the beginning. To answer the question we can only fall back on the
sources, bearing in mind, as Mario Bussagli (1984: 45) wisely points out:
[…] il valore della campagna di Seleuco contro Chandragupta è facilmente rico-

struibile nel suo insieme, tuttavia dobbiamo tener presente che ogni valutazione
più approfondita si basa soprattutto su sfumature.
To begin with, we should not underestimate the evidence offered by Appian

(LV, 282), who writes that, having crossed the Indus—all the lands from Phrygia
to the Indian river came within his dominion—and having fought (ἐπολέμησεν)
with Androcottus (Ἀνδροκόττῳ, equivalent to Sandrocottus), Seleucus φιλίαν αὐτῷ
καὶ κῆδος συνέϑετο, “established friendly relations with him and a matrimonial al-
liance.” And if Appian should not suffice, we may look to both Justin (XV, 4, 10-
14) and Paulus Orosius (III, 23, 44-46). Justin reports the slaying of the Greek
praefecti21 after the rebellion caused by Chandragupta:
Principio Babyloniam cepit; inde auctis ex victoria viribus Bactrianos expug-

navit. Transitum deinde in Indiam fecit, quae post mortem Alexandri, veluti cer-
vicibus iugo servitutis excusso, praefectos eius occiderat. Auctor libertatis
Sandrocottus fuerat, sed titulum libertatis post victoriam in servitutem verterat.
First (Seleucus) took Babylon; then, with a greater number of men thanks to the
victory, he expunged the Bactrians. Subsequently he went on (transitum) to
21
According to Bosworth (1996: 116, n.12), Justin suggests here “an oblique, confused
reference” to the time subsequent to the assassination of Porus (318 BC), but it could also be a
reference to a period of insurrections that had already begun before the death of Alexander on the
death of Philip, who had been partnered with Porus, as governor of part of the Indian territories,
An. VI, 27, 2; Hist. X, 1, 20. These revolts continued until Chandragupta conquered the areas.
India where, after the death of Alexander, to throw off the yoke of subjection,
his prefects had been killed. Sandrocottus had been the bringer of freedom but
after the victory he turned the banner of freedom into one of servitude.
Musti, having no doubts about Seleucus’ military campaign in India (1966:

84-85; 1977: 200-210), wondered whether this transitum from Bactria to India
might not in fact be an allusion to the campaign for reconquest of the upper sa-
trapies. Berthelot (1930: 78), Filliozat and Renou (1947: 213) also recognise the
importance of Seleucus’ Indian campaign. Grainger (1990: 108) rules out actual
warfare, but holds that Seleucus marched upon the Indus to give Chandragupta “a
sort of tactical surprise.” Daffinà (1974-1975: 80) holds that Seleucus also suc-
ceeded in reconquering Gandhāra, only to hand it back, realising the difficulty of
controlling a region so far from the central power. In the version by Paulus Orosius
(4th-5th century A.D.) the reference to war is more explicit (III, 23, 46):
Cum hoc ergo Androcottus Seleucus quamvis multa et gravia bella gessisset,
novissime firmatis regni condicionibus et pacta pace discessit.
Seleucus, having fought many fierce battles with Andracottus, having finally
recognised him king on certain conditions and made a peace agreement, aban-
doned [those regions].
There is another observation we may make, looking back to Bouché-

Leclercq (1913: 29): Seleucus would never have permitted ceding territories that
Alexander had reached and in which he had founded colonies without first wag-
ing war to reconquer them. This is yet another reason not to doubt Appian’s text,
and to reject the conclusions Bernard and Coloru. We now come to Alexandropo-
lis, foundation of which, according to Coloru, was yet another sign of propa-
ganda in support of Seleucus. Fraser (1996: 140) and Goukowsky (2007: 154)
rely on Appian.
The first useful point to consider is effectively that in the list of Seleucus’ nu-
merous foundations and re-foundations, Appian names ἐν δὲ Ἰνδοῖς
Ἀλεξανδρόπολις (Συριακή LVII, 298). Daffinà (1967: 98-99) refrains from pro-
posing any identification for it. Goukowsky (1978: 329 n. 199; 2007: 154 n. 735)
identifies it as Kandahar, in consequence of which this refoundation, ἐν Ἰνδοῖς,
should be in Arachosia. Effectively, many colonies founded by Alexander were
refounded, either after the massacre of Greek settlers on his death, or subsequent
to the plundering of the nomads occurring in the early decades of the 3rd century
BC. Antiochus I Soter (280-262/61 BC), scion of Seleucus Nicator, brought to
share in power by his father as early as 294 BC with appointment to viceroy of
the upper satrapies, founded Soteira in the satrapy of Areia (Stephanus of Byzan-
tium in Meineke 1849: 596, 24-25; Daffinà 1967: 33-34) and refounded
Hērakleia-Achaia22 and Artakoana23 damaged or destroyed by the raids of the no-

mads24 who also attacked Alexandria Eschate on the Iaxartēs, Alexandria on the
Ōxos and Alexandria in Margiana between 293 and 283 BC.25 The only two re-
foundations Goukowsky is sure about are Kandahar and ἐν δὲ Σκύϑαις
Ἀλεξανδρέσχατα, identified as Alexandria Eschatè, i.e. farthest (Khodjend-Leni-
nabad on Syr-daryā), and named by Appian immediately after ἐν δὲ Ἰνδοῖς
Ἀλεξανδρόπολις. Fraser (1996: 132-140) identifies in Alexandropolis/Kandahar,
refoundation by Alexander or “less probably” by Seleucus Nicator. It seems to
me doubtful that for a foundation (or refoundation) the expression ἐν Ἰνδοῖς
should be used, although Appian could have identified as Indian the region which
for Isidore the Parthians Ἰνδικὴν Λευκὴν καλοῦσιν (ΣΠ 19). Daffinà (1967: 98-99)
mentions the identification without commenting on it:
[…] in questa parte dell’Asia si ha notizia dell’esistenza di un’altra sola Ale-

xandropolis: quella che Appiano, Syriakē 57, ricorda tra le città fondate dai
Greci in India.
Ultimately, it is impossible to understand to which of the two Alexandropolis

(in Sakastanē and in Arachosia) it corresponded.
In any case, I believe that even if Alexandropolis had not arisen or had not been
reconstructed on the wishes of Seleucus, the Greek sovereign’s descent upon India,
the associated military campaign and the foundations ascribed to his reign cannot
be mere fruit of Appian’s propaganda. It is true that Coloru and Bernard affirm the
loss of territory that also included the satrapy of Areia, taking this idea as valid, but
could Seleucus have abandoned such a vast area without even attempting to retain
it? The answer can only be no, while it would be a very different matter to postulate
that the clashes (probably not so violent or prolonged) between the two sovereigns
had ended with what amounted to parity, or, better, with reciprocal recognition of
the powers in play, this being the fundamental condition for the agreement they
were to arrive at. Strabo (XV, 2, 9) speaks of territory yielded to Chandragupta. The
areas concerned belonged to the Greek king, who in fact decided to hand them over.
Considering that as from 316 BC no Indian land was held by the Greeks any longer,
how could Seleucus have reappropriated them, to cede them once again?
The fact is, as pointed out to me by Patrizia Cannata, that the ceding as a formal
act could have been decided by Seleucus even without having effectively recon-
22
Cf. Pliny NH VI, 48: Oppidum Heraclea, ab Alexandro conditum, quod deinde subversum
ac restitutum Anthiocus Achaida appellavit. Antiochus I Sōter gave Heraclea, situated at the
Caspian Gates, the name of his brother Achaius.
23
Ibid, VI, 93: Oppidum Artacoana, Arius amnis, qui praefluit Alexandriam ab Alexandro
conditam […] iterum ab Antiocho munitum. Artakoana corresponds to present-day Herat.
24
Wolski (1960: 110-121) held these nomad invaders to have been the Parnoi. Daffinà
agreed (1967: 34, n. 4).
25
Cf. NH VI, 47; Tarn 1941: 89-94; 1951: 523-525. Subsequent to these raids Seleucus
and Antiochus sent an official of theirs to the areas: Dēmodàmas, who would certainly have
drawn up a travel report, since lost.
quered the areas in question. Moreover, a stable Indian frontier was certainly a
higher priority than prolonged conflict both for Seleucus—who, having secured
peace, was free to deal with the Western front, which interested him far more—
and for Chandragupta, who could thus concentrate his power within the borders
of the new kingdom (Will, 1979-1982: 264-266; Bongard-Levin, 1985: 77-78). It
remains that on the basis of the sources battles between the two monarchs cannot
be objectively ruled out before they came to terms of peace.
Returning to Coloru’s objections that Isidore knew only an Alexandropolis in
Drangiana, some clarifications need to be made. The Ζαρανγιανή26 of Isidorus
(FGrHist III c, 2: 781 = ΣΠ 17; Daffinà 1967: 89-95)—which follows Ἀναύων χώρα
τῆς Ἀρείας, lying to the South of Areia, and unknown to Ptolemy, who reflected the
historical conditions prior to those of Isidorus (Berthelot, 1930: 178-179)—preceded
Σακαστάνη, and extended for 21 σχοῖνοι (c. 116 km). It was a very thinly populated
region, unlike Arachosia, and had only two inhabited centres: Πάριν, which is to be
identified as Ζάριν (Persika 55 = FGrHist III c, 1: 471; Daffinà, 1967: 89-90), men-
tioned by Ctesias of Cnidus (the physician at the court of Artaxerxes II and Parysatis),
and Κορόκ. We cannot dismiss the problem of the foundation of Alexandropolis with
the reasons advanced by Coloru, simply because in the section of Drangiana there
was no centre bearing this name, while the Caraxenus knew of Ἀλεξάνδρεια πόλις
and Ἀλεξανδόπολις πόλις in Σακαστάνη27 and an Ἀλεξανδρόπολις, μητρόπολις
Ἀραχωσίας. Let us read Isidorus (ΣΠ 19 = FGrHist III c, 2: 782, 1-5):
Ἐν̇τεῦϑεν Ἀραχωσία, σχοῖνοι λ̅ς ταύτην δὲ οἱ Πάρϑοι Ἰνδικὴν Λευκὴν καλοῦσιν.

Ἐνϑα Βιὺτ πόλις καὶ Φάρσανα πόλις καὶ Χοροχοὰδ πόλις καὶ Δημητριάς πόλις·
εἶτα Ἀλεξανδρόπολις, μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας· ἔστι δὲ Ἑλληνίς, καὶ παραρρεῖ
αὐτὴν ποταμὸς Ἀραχωτός. Ἄχρι τούτου ἐστὶν ἡ τῶν Πάρϑων ἐπικράτεια (or also
ἄχρι τούτου ἐστὶν ὑπὸ τῆι τῶν Πάρϑων ἀρχῆι ἡ χώρα).
From here Arachosia, 36 schoinoi, the Parthian call it White India.28 From here
the city Biut and the city Pharsana and the city Chorochoad29 and the city
26
This form is given in the indexes of the codices, but the one that appears in the text is the
reading δραγγιανή.
27
Lassen (1849, II: 120 n. 1) and Droysen (1878, II: 219) identified them as Kandahar and
Qal’at-i Ġilzai respectively, but they are well over the roughly 350 km of the Σακαστάνη and
“questo basta a rendere l’identificazione inaccettabile” (Daffinà 1967: 98). Tscherikower (1927:
103) associated Ἀλεξάνδρεια with the παρὰ τοῖς Ἀρακώτοις ὁμοροῦσα τῇ Ἰνδικῇ in Stephanus of
Byzantium (Meineke 1849: 71, 18-19). Herzfeld (1931-1932: 4) defined it “ein sonst ubekanntes,
und vielleicht irrtümliches Alexandreia.” Müller expunged Ἀλεξανδρόπολις πόλις (1841-1855,
I: 253-254). Tarn (1951: 471, n. 1) brought it back and expunged Ἀλεξάνδρεια πόλις which in
turn was taken to substitute the Ἀλεξανδρόπολις of section 19, following on it, but I am agree
with Daffinà (1967: 89-90) that “oltracciò egli riferì πλεσίον non alla città che immediatamente
precede, cioè a *Siganpolis, ma alla Sakastanē tutta, trasportando fuori di questa Alexandropolis
(...) Basti solo rilevare che la dislocazione fu escogitata dal Tarn non per altro fine se non quello
di identificare Alexandropolis con Qandahār e aver così le mani libere per identificare
Alessandria d’Arachōsia con Ġaznī.”
28
Cf. NH VII, 28 = FGrHist III c, 1: 512, 25-26 (Ctesias); Arrian Ind. I, 1-3.
Dēmētrias;30 followed by Alexandropolis,31 the capital of Arachōsia; it is

Greek,32 by it flows the river Arachōtos (Argandāb). The supremacy of the Par-
thians extends as far as this.
The first point emerging is the very large population of Arachosia; in fact, on the
36 σχοῖνοι it occupies (c. 200 km) there rise no fewer than five cities. The Arachosian
part of the caravan route began South of the confluence of the Hilmand with the
Argandāb, terminating a few kilometres after Kandahar. The distance between Qal’a-
i Bist/Βιύτ and Kandahar is in fact about 150 km. Tarn shifted the Arachosian place
name Ἀλεξανδρόπολις to Σακαστάνη, bringing it to correspond to Kandahar, thus lo-
cated in this region, and in its place Tarn corrects μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας as
Ἀλεξάνδρεια (expunged from section 18 of Σακαστάνη). The denomination of Alex-
andreia for Arachosia is not attested by Isidore, but it is in Ammianus Marcellinus
(XXIII, 6, 72),33 Ptolemy (VI, 20, 4) and Stephanus of Byzantium (Meineke 1849:
71, 16; Daffinà 1967: 103). Neither the writers of de rebus Alexandri Magni nor Pliny,
nor indeed Strabo knew of an Ἀλεξάνδρεια in Arachosia, but it has also been this lack
of data that fuelled a long series of suppositions. According to Tarn (1951: 461), the
reading Ἀλεξάνδρεια μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας corresponds to Gazni, but above all he
relied on a calculation of distances which he himself admitted did not lead to the in-
tended result (“I am deliberately not considering the distance figures”). Thus Isidore’s
Arachosia did not correspond in extent to Ptolemy’s account. Ptolemy—whose ac-
count reflected the Achaemenid and Macedonian divisions (1951: 88)—placed a
Northern border of Arachosia along the 33rd parallel, far South of Gazni.
Di questa Arachōsia che, tanto per intenderci, potremmo chiamare ʽclassicaʼ,

l’Arachōsia degli Stathmoi Parthicoi non è se non una piccola parte; orbene il
Tarn con un senso molto elastico dello spazio, ha dilatato la parte fino a farla
più grande del tutto. (Daffinà 1967: 104).
29
Identification of the Parthian caravan route of Χοροχοάδ and correspondence with
Arachosiorum Oppidum is based on rigorous calculation—which we will not repeat, referring
the reader to Daffinà (1967: 100-102; cf. also Schmitt 1979: 246-247; Berthelot 1930: 96, 290-
291; Foucher 1942-1947, II: 213-215, 218-219; Tarn1951: 471)—of the distances between the
various centres, in particular the successive, Ὀρτόσπανα (Strabo XI, 8, 9 = FGrHist II b: 624,
1-5)/Hortospanum (NH VI, 61 = FGrHist II b: 623, 36) identified as Kabul (Berthelot 1930: 96,
290-291; Foucher 1942-1947, II: 213-215). The distances are compared in the accounts of
Ptolemy, Pliny, Strabo (whose source here is Eratosthenes) and Isidorus.
30
Here I do not accept Tarn’s interpretation (1951: 471), which identifies Δημητριάς with
Strabo’s Arachosiorum Oppidum/Ἀραχωτοὺς τὴν πόλιν and the Ἀραχωτοί ἀπὸ Ἀραχωτοῦ ποταμοῦ
of Stephanus of Byzantium. We will see this frankly recognised superficiality having its effects
in identification of Isidore’s Ἀλεξανδρόπολις, μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας.
31
We retain the original reading, while Jacoby accepts Tarn’s correction. Cf. FGrHist III
c, 2: 782, 1-5; FHG I: 254.
32
According to Herzfeld (1931-1932: 4) “mit griechischer Selbstverwaltung.”
33
Post quos exadversum Arachosia visitur, dextrum vergens in latus, Indis obiecta, quam
ab Indo fluviorum maximo (unde regiones cognominatae sunt) amnis multo minor exoriens,
aquarum alluit amplitudine, efficitque paludem quam Arachotoscrenen appellant. Hic quoque
civitates sunt inter alias viles, Alexandria et Arbacia et Choaspa.
According to Daffinà (1967: 104), the passage used (An. III, 28, 4)34 to justify
the placing “si riferisce chiaramente alla fondazione di un’Alessandria nei Paro-
pamisadai, non in Arachōsia.”
Tarn’s thesis was accepted by Bombaci (1957: 259 n. 48) and Jacoby
(FGrHist III c, 2: 782). Daffinà (followed by Fraser 1996: 132-140) accepted the
amendment of Ἀλεξανδρόπολις as Σακαστάνη, and the correction of Ἀλεξάνδρεια
as Arachosia, but not the historical conjecture that would legitimise either of them
(1967: 104-105):
[…] ma per aver posto Alessandria d’Arachōsia a Ġaznī, il Tarn è rimasto altresì
impigliato in una contraddizione che è un altro segno della fallacia della sua
tesi. La metropoli dell’Arachōsia era il capolinea orientale della carovaniera
che attraversava l’impero partico ‘ἄχρι τούτου ἐστὶν – conchiude Isidoro – ἡ τῶν
Πάρϑων ἐπικράτεια.’ Persuaso che negli Stathmoi Parthicoi si rispecchino le
condizioni nelle quali l’impero partico si trovava verso la fine del II secolo BC
e che la metropoli dell’Arachōsia fosse Ġaznī, il Tarn ha dovuto conseguente-
mente porre a Ġaznī il limite orientale di quell’impero: che è stato un atto da
parte sua già abbastanza incauto. Un po’ prima che Mithradatēs II morisse (88-
87 BC), Arachōsia e Paropamisadai sarebbero stati conquistati dai Parsioi-Pa-
sianoi, i quali avrebbero fatto di Ġaznī e di Kābul i centri della loro potenza;
sennonché il Tarn non dice, come sarebbe stato conforme con la premessa, che
i suoi Parsioi-Pasianoi togliessero Ġaznī ai Parti, bensì che la tolsero agli Indo-
greci! Il garbuglio storico-geografico da lui creato era tale, insomma, che il Tarn
stesso non ci si raccapezzava più.
I agree entirely with the criticisms of Tarn but, unlike Daffinà, I would hold
the original reading Ἀλεξανδρόπολις, μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας valid, seeing no
need or reason for Tarn’s correction and arbitrary shifting of
Ἀλεξανδρόπολις/Ἀλεξάνδρεια from one region to another. At the same time, on the
basis of the Ptolemaic system of coordinates reconstructed by Daffinà (1967: 105),
I find it probable that the position of μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας coincides with the site
of present-day Kandahar, beyond which “doveva passare il confine ed ivi avere
termine l’impero partico, qual era non già al tempo di Mithradatēs II, ma nell’ul-
timo quarto del I secolo BC” (Daffinà 1967: 105-106), and therefore that it is not
compatible with the site of Gazni.
In any case, without discussing his opinion on the matter, a point I need to make
is that there existed no Ἀλεξανδρόπολις in Drangiana, as affirmed by Coloru.
34
Ἐν τούτῳ δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος πρὸς τὸν Καύκασον τὸ ὄρος ἦγεν ἳνα καὶ πόλιν ἔκτισε καὶ
ὠνόμασεν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν, to be read with IV, 22, 5 and compare with Diodorus Siculus XVII,
83, 1 as well as Quintus Curtius Rufus VII, 3, 22-23: XVII dierum spatio Caucasum superauit
exercitus...23 Condendae in radicibus montibus urbi sedes electa est. VII milibus seniorum
Macedonum et praeterea militibus, quorum opera uti desisset, permissum in noua urbe
considere. Hanc quoque Alexandream incolae appellauerunt.
The Agreement between Seleucus Nicator and Chandragupta Maurya
The agreement between Seleucus and Chandragupta is placed between 305

and 303 BC (Beloch 1925-1927, IV, 1: 142.). One clause concerns Seleucus’s
transfer of territory. Then there is a pact (pactione facta, Justin XV, 4, 21) of
ἐπιγαμία (Strabo XV, 2, 9), or κῆδος (Appian Συριακή, LV). Finally, we have the
Mauryan gift of five hundred elephants. Arachosia was clearly connected with the
satrapies bordering on it to the North and South, respectively Paropamisadai and
Gedrosia, to the North-West Areia, to the West Drangiana and to the East Hinduš,
and the former possessions of Taxiles and Porus, now of Chandragupta. The list
of authors arguing the total transfer of the satrapies (excluding Drangiana) is strik-
ingly long: Smith (1924: 158), Majumdar (1977: 106), Mookerji (1940: 36-38),
Macdonald (1955: 385-388), Thomas (1955: 424-425), Kartunnen (1997: 263),
Fussman (1974: 369-372; 2009: 475-477), Préaux (1978: 133), Bernard (1985:
85-95; 2004: 265-269; 2012: 167 n. 576), Schlumberger e Benveniste (1958: 3-7,
44-48), Eggermont (1965-1966: 57-62), Grainger (1990: 132-133), Christol (1983:
31-32), Holt (1989: 100-102), Biffi (2005: 259-260), Capdetrey (2007: 46-48),
Coloru (2009: 136-137, 142-143), Mairs (2008: 21), Widemann (2009: 26-27),
Taddei (1972: 44), Wiesehöfer (2003: 74-75). Arguing extensive but not total
transfer are: Tarn (1951: 100-102, 174), Sherwin-White and Kurt (1993: 93-97),
Musti (1966: 87-89; 1977: 211), Bussagli (1984: 43-46), Vogelsang (1985: 58, n.
10), Santi Amantini (1989: 317, n. 1). Affirming transfer limited to the Eastern
areas of the satrapies—summed up by Wolski (1947: 20-21), who saw Seleucus
as ‘vainqueur en tout cas, n’était point obligè de renoncer à de si grands territoires
en Iran’—are: von Gutschmid (1888: 24), Beloch (1925-1927, IV, 1: 142; IV, 2:
360), Niese (1893-1903: 341-342), Bevan (1902, I: 206), Krom (1909: 154-157),
Jouguet (1928: 353-354), Berthelot (1930: 79-80), Newell (1938: 38, 112, 170-
171), Filliozat and Renou (1947: 213), Daffinà (1967: 30-34; 1977: 14-15; 1974-
1975: 79-80), Cannata (2008: 3), Scharfe (1971: 215-218), Schmitt (1979:
246-247), Schober (1981: 167), Will (1979-1982, I: 264-266, II: 63). Those who
see transfer as total may, perhaps, fail to take into account the classical sources. It
is worth pointing out that, including Appian, they do not contradict one another,
with differences only in certain details. Take, for example, Strabo (XV, 2, 9 = XV,
724):
Ἡ δὲ τάξις τῶν ἐϑνῶν τοιαύτη παρὰ μὲν τὸν Ἰνδὸν οἱ Παροπαμισάδαι, ὧν

ὑπέρκειται ὁ Παροπαμισὸς ὄρος, εἶτ’ Ἀραχωτοὶ πρὸς νότον, εἶτ’ ἐφεξῆς πρὸς
νότον Γεδρωσηνοὶ σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς τὴν παραλίαν ἔχουσιν ἅπασι δὲ παρὰ τὰ
πλάτη τῶν χωρίων παράκειται ὁ Ἰνδός. Τούτων δ’ ἐκ μέρους τῶν παρὰ τὸν Ἰνδὸν
ἔχουσί τινα Ἰνδοὶ πρότερον ὄντα Περσῶν, ἃ ἀφείλετο μὲν ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος τῶν
Ἀριανῶν καὶ κατοικίας ἰδίας συνεστήσατο, ἔδωκε δὲ Σέλευκος ὁ Νικάτωρ
Σανδροκόττῳ, συνϑέμενος ἐπιγαμίαν καὶ ἀντιλαβὼν ἐλέφαντας πεντακοσίους.
The distribution of the populations is as follows: along the Indus, the Paropa-
misadai, with Mount Paropamisos rising above them; next, towards the South,
the Arachotoi; following Southwards, the Gedrosenoi together with other popu-
lations that occupy the shoreline; the Indus bathes the entire extent of these
lands. Of a part (ἐκ μέρους) of these (τούτων) along the Indus (παρὰ τὸν Ἰνδὸν)
some (τινα) are occupied by the Indians, having been first (that were
once/πρότερον ὄντα) Persian, which Alexander seized from the Aryans and
founded there his colonies (κατοικίας) (and) Seleucus Nicator bestowed (ἔδωκε)
on Chandragupta, ratifying the epigamia and receiving in exchange (ἀντιλαβὼν)
500 elephants.
Coloru (2009: 136) observed:
[…] malgrado la scarsità delle fonti, quando Seleuco concluse il trattato del 303
con Chandragupta, egli riconobbe al re indiano la sovranità su Paropamisade
ed Arachosia, fatto che mi sembra indicare che molto prima di questa data le
due satrapie fossero già parte effettiva dei domini di Chandragupta.
Although the sources are there for all to read and set out the territorial terms
of the agreement, the certainties of the authors who ignore the fact remain intact.
Coloru argues on the basis of two premises. The first denies Seleucus’ descent
upon India and the consequent war with Chandragupta; I have already commented
on this. The second revolves about the role of Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, whose
court in Alexandria in Arachosia was attended by Megasthenes, traditionally taken
to be Seleucus’ ambassador in India. On this satrap, and on Megasthenes we need
only mention a few aspects for now in order to be able to follow Coloru’s line of
reasoning. Sibyrtius was placed at the head of the satrapy between 325 and 324
BC (Beloch 1925-1927, IV, 1: 141 n. 1; Geyer 1923, RE, II A, coll. 2183-2184;
Brown 1957: 13-15) by Alexander himself, and maintained his post under both
Antigonus and Seleucus; he is remembered mainly as having been Megasthenes’
host. The diplomatic mission to Pāṭaliputra/Παλίβοθρα in Magadha (present-day
Patnā, capital of Bihar), capital of the empire created by Chandragupta Maurya, is
generally dated to the period subsequent to the pact. Bosworth (1996) does not be-
lieve that Megasthenes was Seleucus’ emissary and backdates the mission by at
least two decades—conjecturing that he belonged to the court of Sibyrtius, already
satrap of the region 20 years before the pact—and seeing Megasthenes as Sibyrtius’
ambassador. Coloru, while not concurring with Bosworth on this point, wonders
how many years Sibyrtius lived after he had been appointed the post by Alexander.
Since we do not know how old he was at the time, Coloru, taking his death to have
occurred at an uncertain date, goes on to argue that Arachosia belonged to Chan-
dragupta’s dominion. The arguments seem rather flimsy: how could hegemony
over a region be deduced from mere supposition of the date of the death of its sa-
trap? But even if it were so, why should it have happened so long before the pact
between the monarchs? If we were to estimate the lifespan and year of death of
the personages of the period, we would have to bear in mind the long life of Se-
leucus Nicator, whose reign lasted until 281 BC, or of Ptolemy I Soter (367-283
a.C). Bernard (1985: 85) also adds to Seleucus’ transfer of territory Areia as far as
Artakoana/Herat and insists that the Greek inscriptions discovered at Kandahar

confirm Indian political dominion. I do not see how the inscriptions of Aśoka at
Alexandria in Arachosia attest to Indian possession in Areia. As we will see, their
implications are very different. To surpass the limitations of the areas along the
Indus shoreline (παρὰ τὸν Ἰνδὸν), which Alexander is recorded as having seized
from the Aryans, Bernard (1985: 87) observes:
[…] dans un cadre géographique aussi vaste, la notion de territoires voisins de

l’Indus peut très bien ne pas se réduire aux zones riveraines du fleuve et dé-
border largement au-delà de la limite occidentale de son bassin.
According to this author, Appian’s reference to the war is propaganda devoid

of interest, and not a word is spent on Trogus or Orosius. And when, on the other
hand, attention turns to Arianē (Gnoli 1967; 1980; Daffinà 1974-1975: 83-85), he
ignores the geographer of Amasea. That Strabo describes Arianē or a part of it
(Gedrosia, Arachosia and Paropamisadai) raises no difficulties; in fact, he adds
that Alexander seized from the Aryans the areas bordering the course of the Indus,
which, on the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, still belonged to it. Even if Hinduš,
with Artaxerxes III Ochus in 359 BC (Daffinà, 1983: 2) was outside the Empire,
let us recall the mountain Indians fighting alongside the Arachotoi against the
Greek invader, the Indians ἐπὶ τάδε τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ who gave assistance to Barsaëntes,
Samaxus rex exiguae partis Indorum, the Sudraci and the Malli, with the tribute
to the Arachosians. As from the times of Darius I Arachosia had supplied ivory;
its domain extended Eastwards, and not Northwards, as Bernard would have it,
identifying Alexandria in Arachosia with Capisa. The geographical picture that
Strabo offers tallies with the historical context, and there is no need to distort it.
Dei territori nominati non furono ceduti se non i tratti rivieraschi, ossia le ka-
toikiai, le terre degli Indiani ἐπὶ τὰδε τοῦ Ἰνδοῦ. (Daffinà 1967: 31).
Before going on to the katoikiai, let us briefly dwell on the identification of

Kandahar with Capisa, argued by Bernard. It is based on identification of the
Achaemenid-period Arachosian fortress of Kāpišakāniš with Pliny’s Capisa—a
proximis Indo gentibus montana Capisene habuit Capisam urbem quam diruit
Cyrus (NH VI, 92), i.e. Kāpišī—first upheld by Thomas (1906: 191 n. 1, 460-461).
During the succession to Cambyses II (end of 522 BC), the satrap of Arachosia,
Vivāna, faithful to Darius, was entrusted by the latter to crush the revolt of
Vahyazdāta, one of the nine rebels against the power of the new sovereign.35
35
The revolt which broke out at the stronghold of Kāpišakāniš (29 december 522 BC) was
quelled by Vivāna in the district of Gandutava (20 February 521 BC). At Bīsūtūn, Harauvatiš
was located between Zrankā and Θataguš. The Babylonian Bīsūtūn text locates Gandatamaki
(the Persian Gandutava, the Elamite Kandumaka, DB/El 3.27-28; DB/Bab 80-83; DB III, 66)
in the district of Θataguš/Ʃατταγύδαι (the Greek follows the Elamite sa-ad-ku-iš, or the Akkadian
sa-at-gu-u). The Persian text does not identify it, while the Elamite text locates Kandumaka in
Vivāna’s residence in Arachosia was at Aršādā (DB III, 72; DB/Bab. 83, DB/El
3.31; Kent 1953). In the Elamite version of Bīsūtūn the centre is described as irma-
tam viwanama, but it is not clear what type of dominion was involved. In the other
two versions, Aršādā is designated with a word having the same sense, dida for the
Persian and birtu for the Akkadian, ‘fortress.’ Some help might be offered by the
tablets in the Fortifications of Persepolis, where irmatam appears with the meaning
of territorial-administrative department, and Briant (1996: 458-459) explains:
[…] le terme irmatam renvoie à une sorte de ʽdomaineʼ (au sense indéfini du
terme) [...] si le satrape Vivāna y detient un ʽdomaineʼ, on comprende que les
insurgés en aient fait l’objectif prioritarie de leur offensive.
Aršādā may be Kandahar: Alexander’s symbolic refoundation would appear

to have changed the name to Alexandria in Arachosia (Daffinà 1967: 103-106).
Although the first mention of an Alexandria in Arachosia comes only in Ptolemy
(VI, 20, 4), we may reasonably identify it as the Eastern terminus of the caravan
route of the Parthian Empire, the μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας, defined Ἑλλενίς (ΣΠ 19),
on the Ἀραχωτός/Argandāb, corresponding to Kandahar (Daffinà 1967: 105). Ber-
nard (1974: 178 n. 3) dismisses the possibility that Aršādā may be identified as
Kandahar, since Aršādā is defined irmatam and does not appear to have been the
‘capital’ of the region, but only a personal dominion of Vivāna. The vagueness of
the term irmatam certainly does not help, but it does not seem to me to invalidate
the Aršādā/Kandahar hypothesis. The fallacy of this certitude of the French scholar,
on the other hand, has far older origins. Although the etymon Kāpišakāniš may be
explained with the fusion of ka and āna, which are frequently used suffixes, and
although Ptolemy recorded many other centres of similar names,36 Thomas (1906)
considered that Kāpišakāniš was to be identified with the Capisam urbem on the
Arachosia. Herzfeld (1968: 334) identified Gandatamaki with Gandawa, South of Quetta. Von
Voigtlander (1978: 36), on the other hand, suggested Gandamak in Eastern Afghanistan; Fleming
(1982: 106-111) cast doubt on these theses. The Sattagydai with the Gandāri, Dadici and Apariti,
in the seventh district, paid a hundred and seventy talents annually (III, 91, 4). They had no part
in Xerxes’ army at Doriscos (VII, 67-70), nor were they mentioned by Strabo amongst the
populations conquered by Alexander, but they are depicted on the tomb reliefs of Darius I at
Naqš-i Rustam, dressed like the Maka, the Indians and the Gandāri. The first location of the
Sattagydai was on the mountains of central Afghanistan, in Kūh-ī Bābā above the Hilmand basin,
surrounded by Bactria, Arachosia and Areia (Markwart 1896: 175). According to Gershevitch
(1959: 174-175), the Avestan site Iškata (Yasht 10.14)—coinciding with iškata upāiri.saēna in
Hindūkuš (Yasna 10.11; Yasht 19.3)—was Sattagydia (DB/El 1.14; DB/Bab 6; DB I, 16-17).
36
Χοανα (VI, 11, 7), Σουραγανα (VI, 11, 7), Ἀστακανα (VI, 11, 8) in Βακτριανὴ.
Ἰνδικομορδάνα (VI, 12, 6) for the Σογδιανοί. Χαύρανα (VI, 15, 4) for the ἐκτὸς Ἰμάρου ὄρους
Σκυϑία. Θροάνα (VI, 16, 6), Παλιανα (VI, 16, 7), Ἀβραγανα (VI, 16, 7), Ὀροσάνα (VI, 16, 8),
Σολάνα (VI, 16, 8) in Σηρικὴ. Σαρμαγανα (VI, 17, 4), Ζαμουχάνα (VI, 17, 5), Γοδάνα (VI, 17,
5), Ὀρϑιάνα (VI, 17, 6), Ταυκιάνα (VI, 17, 6), Ἀρτακαυάνα (VI, 17, 6), Βαβαρσάνα (VI, 17, 6),
Καποτάνα (VI, 17, 6), Ἀστασανα (VI, 17, 8) in Ἀρεία. Βαβοράνα (VI, 18, 4), Δαροακάνα (VI,
18, 5), Ταρβακάνα (VI, 18, 5) for the Παροπανισάδαι. Νοστάνα (VI, 19, 5), Φαραζάνα (VI, 19,
5), Ἀράνα (VI, 19, 5) in Δραγγιανὴ. Ῥιζανα (VI, 20, 4) and Δαμμανα (VI, 20, 5) in Ἀραχωσία.
Ghorband. Here the inconsistency is not only linguistic but also geographic:
Achaemenid dominion extended almost certainly as far as the area of the con-
fluence of the Ghorband with the Pañjšir, i.e. the ancient site of Kāpišī, but Ha-
rauvatiš did not reach so far North, while its territory stretched Eastwards towards
India (Olmstead 1948: 168; Tarn 1951: 100 n. 3; Daffinà 1967: 23-24).
Up to this point, Bernard follows Thomas: Capisa is located in Arachosia. In
addition, he (1974: 175-181) identifies Cutim37—Arachosia cum flumine et oppido
eiusdem nominis quod quidam Cufim dixēre, a Samiramide conditum (NH VI,
92)—both with Arachosiorum Oppidum (NH VI, 61), i.e. Strabo’s εἶτ̓εἰς
Ἀραχωτοὺς τὴν πόλιν (XI, 8, 9) and with the Ἀραχωτοί ἀπὸ Ἀραχωτοῦ ποταμοῦ of
Stephanus of Byzantium (cf. Meineke, 1849: 110, 13)—as well as Ptolemy’s
Ἀλεξάνδρεια in Arachosia (VI, 20, 4). Kandahar/Kāpišakāniš is identified with
Pliny’s Capisa, Cutim, Arachosiorum Oppidum, with the Hellenic equivalents, as
well as Ptolemy’s Ἀλεξάνδρεια.
What I simply cannot agree with is locating Pliny’s Capisam urbem in Harau-
vatiš because Cyrus presumably destroyed it after the conquest of Arachosia. The
fact that the two territories—Arachosia and Capisene—were contiguous does not
imply identity between them. And the fact that they were mentioned by Pliny one
after the other does not mean that the writer (or his source) was confused, attribu-
ting events affecting only one place to different places. Probably Cyrus first crossed
Drangiana in Arachosia, but this does not shift Kandahar to Drangiana. Following
Bernard along this line, we would have an indefensible identification of Capisene
with Arachosia, for Capisam urbem is clearly situated in Capisene. It is hard to
determine whether Cutim was Ἀλεξάνδρεια/Kandahar or another term for Arachos-
iorum oppidum (Daffinà 1967: 102), but in any case it does not tally with Capisa.
For Kāpišakāniš to become Kāpišī it would have to lose the second part of its name
without any explanation. According to the legend, Cutim was founded by Semira-
mis. The first to recount the fantastic Eastern and Indian military campaigns of the
Assyrian Queen in the early fourth century BC was Ctesias (in Diodorus Siculus
II, 16-19 = FGrHist III c: 434-438), followed by Nearchus of Crete (fr. 3a-b = An.
VI, 24, 2 = Strabo XV, 1, 5; 2, 5 = FGrHist II b: 707-708), Nicolaus of Damascus
(FGrHist II a: 328; II c: 325) and on to Stephanus of Byzantium (Meineke 1849:
110, 10-12), although Megasthenes (fr. 11 a-b = Strabo XV, 1, 6; Ind. V, 7 =
FGrHist III c: 616, 5-9, 14-15) denies that Semiramis ever arrived there. Pliny
(NH VI, 92), Trogus (I, 2, 9) and Orosius (I, 4, 5) recount Semiramis’ legendary
descent upon India (Brown 1955; Daffinà 1990), although according to Bernard
(1974: 176)
[…] le mythe renferme une part de vérité, à savoir ici l’ancienneté de la ville.
C’est cette ancienneté précisément qui a permis d’associer à Qandahar le nom
de la reine fabuleuse.
37
The reading Cutim instead of Cufim is to be found in the most authoritative codices of Pliny’s
text, the Parisinus Latinus 6795, the Florentinus Riccardianus and the Vaticanus Latinus 3861.
Assuming that Cutim was founded by Semiramis and Cutim is Kandahar, the
city and the queen are associated by virtue of their antiquity, but this odd mixture
of elements does not prove that the two centres were one and the same.
To return to the katoikiai founded along the course of the Indus, according to
Biffi (2005: 259-260) they should be Alexandria in Arachosia and Artakoana. Ar-
takoana lies about 900 km away from the Indus, Kandahar over 500 km. It would
be simpler to take some as the colonies founded by Alexander along the course of
the river or its tributaries, such as Bukephala to the East of the Jehlam (Berthelot
1930: 79-81). Biffi echoes Bernard’s conviction that Areia, too, came within the
dominion of Chandragupta, and here we have further reasons for dissent. If Areia
had really belonged to Chandragupta’s dominion, are we to account for the refoun-
dation of Sōteira, Hērakleia-Achaia and indeed Artakoana itself, accomplished by
Antiochus I between 280 and 270 BC? We would have to postulate a Seleucid re-
conquest in the years following immediately after the pact, but it hardly seems
likely. If, then, we were to admit the great loss of Areia, Bactria would remain cut
out of Seleucid dominion and, considering that until Diodotus’ secession (c. 240
BC)38 Bactria was included in the Seleucid kingdom, a lapse in territorial continuity
with the rest of the Empire again seems unlikely. Finally, according to Bernard
(1985: 89) Sibyrtius was “vassal de l’empereur maurya” forced by circumstances
(no better defined) “à faire allégeance à l’empereur indien.” Megasthenes in turn
would become a Greek of Arachosia, familier of the governor Sibyrtius in whose
court he was again accommodated on completing his diplomatic mission to
Pāṭaliputra on behalf of Seleucus. What Bernard does not even begin to explain is
how Seleucus came to choose a Greek of Arachosia, seen by him to belong to a
Mauryan province, to use him as ambassador to the sovereign of whom he was at
the same time a subject. Besides the written sources, the numismatic evidence re-
garding Seleucus, dealt with by Newell (1938) and not disregarded only by Tarn
(1939: 321-322), Bussagli (1984: 44-45), Daffinà (1975-1976: 23-24), Sherwin-
White-Kuhrt (1993: 93-94) and Goukowsky (1978: 206-207), should also be re-
lated to the events. Can it be mere chance that only the historians convinced of the
partial ceding of the satrapies and of Seleucus’ military campaign have highlighted
the significance of Newell’s researches? Until 305 BC the Seleucid Empire’s mint-
ing centres, Babylon, Susa, Ecbatana, Persepolis and Seleucia on the Tigris always
reproduced the same types of coins. As from 305 BC the mints of Susa and Seleu-
cia on the Tigris, and from 303 BC the mint of Ecbatana would go on producing
double gold staters showing on the obverse the head of Alexander covered by the
exuviae elephantis, and on the reverse Nike. The model for this coin is Ptolemaic,
as pointed out by Goukowsky (1978: 127), although omitting the horns of Amun,
38
Diodotus’ secession occurred shortly after that of Andragora, governor of Parthia (around
245 BC). Seleucus II Callinicus (246-225 BC) was defeated by the Galatians at Ancyra (Ankara)
in 240 or 239 BC; he then dealt with the revolt of his brother Antiochus Hierax, governor of
Media, until 236 BC. Probably as early as the very beginning of the conflict, Diodotus, governor
of Bactria, started the revolt; Daffinà 1974-1975: 85-86.
which Seleucus may have considered to attest to a sort of alliance with Egypt. The
exuviae elephantis signify the connection that Seleucus meant to bring out between
his Eastern campaign and the divine filiation from Alexander, conqueror of the
East and of India (Newell 1938: 38). The former fugitive was now following in
Alexander’s Anabasis and laying the foundations for a vast kingdom. The exuviae
became “le symbole par excellence de tante conquête extrême orientale.” (Gou-
kowsky 1978: 206).
Between 305 and 300 BC Seleucia on the Tigris issued a gold stater and silver
tetradrachms with the face of Athena showing the right profile, wearing the triple
crested Corinthian helmet adorned with a coiled serpent (recto), ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ on
the left, ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ on the right, framing a winged Nike turned towards her right,
bearing the crown of victory in her outstretched right hand (verso) (Newell 1938:
12, pl. I, 1-8). This coin is indicative of Seleucus’ descent upon India and his Indian
campaign. Subsequent to the pact, as from 302-301 BC the mint of Seleucia on
the Tigris coined silver tetradrachms with the head of young Heracles crowned
with lion-skin showing right profile on the recto, while on the verso, accompanied
by ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ below and ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ to his left, is depicted Zeus Nikephoros,
showing left profile, seated on a throne (Newell 1938: 15, pl. IV, 1).
A small winged Nike Stephanophoros stands on the palm of his right and,
turned towards the god’s head to crown him with a laurel wreath. According to
Newell (1938: 20) “the allusion is obviously to the successes which Seleucus had
gained in the Eastern portion of his empire.”
Issued at the same time were two bronze series with Athena, turned showing
her right profile (recto) and an elephant in right profile (verso) (Newell 1938: 15,
pls. IV, 8, IV, 9, LVI, 16). Consequently (Newell 1938: 20)
[…] what the apparent sequence and dating of silver coins suggests, the types
now chosen for a fresh issue of bronze coins render certain. The reverse type of
both denominations is a splendid Indian elephant, which appears for the first
time on Seleucid coinages.
In the light of this, Bussagli (1984: 45) observes that these issues bear “da un
lato il simbolo, per eccellenza, della grecità e, dall’altro il segno del più concreto
risultato della campagna.”
It is, I believe, worth considering these in relation to an issue of tetradrachms
by Seleucia on the Tigris, shortly after the victory of Ipsus (301 BC). The coin
celebrates the victory over Antigonus and not the Eastern campaign, although it
makes use of what was gained with it. On the recto the head of Zeus with laurel
wreath in right profile, on the verso a warlike helmeted Athena brandishing a
shield in her left hand and a javelin in her right hand raised behind her head, drives
a chariot drawn by elephants in right profile, hypostasis of power and regal mag-
nificence (Newell 1938: 23, pls. VI, 1, XI, 13). Between 304 and 303 BC Seleucus
embarked upon a campaign of reconquest against Oxyartes (Alexander’s old
father-in-law) that gained him the Paropamisadai which, reduced by the transfer
of Gandhāra and Chandragupta, were probably reunited with the possessions of

the faithful Sibyrtius (Beloch 1925-1927, IV, 2: 360). The last coins appear to
confirm both the victory over Roxana’s father and the satisfactory compromise
with Chandragupta. Seleucus relinquished the Easternmost parts of the border sa-
trapies, wisely appreciating the impossibility of lasting control over them, receiv-
ing in exchange material manifestation of real military power represented by the
elephants, symbolic and decisive for his future ambitions. If he had yielded vast
territories, how could we account for the coinage celebrating the campaign and
its outcome so positively?
Bernard (2005: 21) rightly pointed out that when Demetrius I of Bactria
(around 190-185 BC) conquered Arachosia and the Paropamisadai, uniting under
a single monarchy the North and and Southern reaches of the Hindūkuš,
[…] the elephant head with which Demetrius crowns himself on his coinage
marks his will to be recognized, after Alexander, as the new conqueror of India.
I believe that the same could have been said of Seleucus. Further attestation
of Mauryan recognition of the Seleucid sovereign’s great dominion can also be in-
ferred from the descriptions of Aśoka, son of Bindusāra amitrakhāda39—ʽcrusher
of enemiesʼ, an epithet of Indra (Ṛgveda X, 152, 1), better than the generic
amitraghāta, ʽkiller of enemiesʼ—and grandson of Chandragupta (Scharfe 1971:
211-225). Aśoka had his own special epithet, Priyadarśin.
Moreover, while in the Girnār and Dhauli versions the sovereign records his
ancestors who went on travels of pleasure with the traditional rājāno ‘king,’ in the
Mānsehrā, Kālsī and Shāhbāzgarhī versions (Scharfe 1971: 213) the sovereigns
of the past are given the title of devānāṃpriya. Often Aśoka is presented with this
attribute, the only one he has in common with his forefathers. In the Aramaic in-
scriptions from Kandahar, Devānāṃpriya is translated as mārān, equivalent to
ʽsatrap/governorʼ (Daffinà 1977: 28). In devānāṃpriya Scharfe finds the trans-
lation of φίλος τῶν βασιλέων, ‘dear to the divine majesties.’ Seleucus ratified re-
lations of φιλία/pactio with Chandragupta, and Aśoka, presenting himself thus,
declared his deference and respect to the king of Syria, as his grandfather had done
to Seleucus (Maniscalco 2018).
Here let us briefly assess the contribution of the Aśokan epigraphs from Kan-
dahar for the dominion of Arachosia. Schlumberger and Benveniste (1958: 6-7,
44-48; cf. also Bernard 1985: 85-95; contra Schober 1981)40 see no sense in Aśoka
being allowed to have his official proclamations carved in Greek in the city terri-
39
The variants Ἀμιτροχάτης (Hegesander in Athenaeus XIV, 65) and Ἀλλιτροχάδην
(˂ Ἀλλιτροχάδης, Strabo II, 1, 9), in which we can detect the mistaken Μ as ΛΛ to be traced back
to Ἀμιτρχάδης, derive from the Sanskrit amitrakhāda, ˂ √ khād = ʽto tear with the teethʼ, a divine
epithet which perfectly befits a royal figure; Charpentier 1928: 312-315; Daffinà, 1960: 210.
40
Bernard, like many others (Fussman 1974; Christol 1983; Pugliese Carratelli 2003;
Coloru 2009) follows Schlumberger, as far as study of the inscription of Sōphytos (2004: 265-
269; Bernard, Rougemont 2012); contra Maniscalco 2018.
tory if it had been dominated by nearby Antiochus. From this ̒futility̕ derives the
certainty not only of the control of the Buddhist sovereign over the old satrapy,
but indeed of the transition from Greek to Indian domination as early as the time
of his forefather’s agreement. Schlumberger (1958: 4) declares:
[…] On croira difficilement qu’(Aśoka) ait pu faire graver une proclamation de

cette espèce dans les États de son voisin Antiochos.
We can object first recalling Will (1979-1982, 1: 266):

Cela, toutefois, ne tranche pas définitivement la question de l’appartenance de
la region de Kandahar avant Açoka: le fait, d’une part que l’on n’entende pas
parler d’une conquête indienne du pays entre Tchandragoupta et Açoka, mais
aussi le fait, d’autre part, qu’avant sa conversion Açoka fut un guerrier conquér-
ant, permettraient d’argumenter dans un sense comme dans l’autre.
But Will too dismiss Strabo’s argument (ibidem):
Reste évidemment qu’en l’absence de toute documentation, l’hypothèse la plus

économique est celle de la cession de la région de Kandahar par Seleucus Iᵉͬ,
Although he cautiously observes that (ibidem):
[…] l’hypothèse inverse d’une progression après 303 pourrait à la rigueur être
liée à la rupture de la grande route séleucide par le Sud de l’Iran, rupture con-
sécutive à l’éventuelle émancipation de la Perside à l’époque d’Antiochos Iᵉͬ, si
ce dernier fait pouvait être irréfutablement prouvé, ce qui est loin d’être le cas
pour l’instant.
In any case, accordiCEng to the French school, no profound significance could

have remained in Aśoka’s declarations (RE XIII) about the possibility of propa-
gandising his doctrines abroad, amongst his neighbours (āparānta; Pugliese Car-
ratelli 1953: 449-454) Aṃtiyoka (Antiochus I Soter, 280-262/61 BC), Aṃtekina
(Antigonus II Gonatas king of Macedonia, 276-240/39 BC), Turamāya (Ptolemy
II Philadelphus, 285-246 BC), Magās of Cyrene (up to 250 BC) and Alikasudara
(Alexander of Epirus, 272-240/39 BC). In concrete terms the victory of Dharma
meant the dissemination of his word both to the West in the Hellenistic kingdoms
and amongst the other populations of Southern India. At Shāhbāzgarhī, we read,
both in the Indian kingdom and amongst the neighbours:
Da per tutto si segue l’insegnamento del Dharma del Devānāmpriya. Anche là

dove i messaggeri del Devānāmpriya non si recano, quelli pure, avendo udito la
pratica del Dharma, i precetti [del Dharma], l’insegnamento del Dharma del
Devānāmpriya, si conformano e si conformeranno al Dharma. Quella in tal modo
conseguita è una vittoria universale ed è l’essenza della gioia. Questa gioia è stata
ottenuta con la vittoria del Dharma. Nondimeno il Devānāmpriya pensa che que-
sta gioia sia davvero poca cosa e che solo ciò che vale per l’altro mondo
(pāratrika) rechi grande beneficio (mahāphala). Questa iscrizione del Dharma è
stata incisa a questo scopo: affinché i miei figli e pronipoti non pensino di fare
un’altra conquista [ma] nel loro regno prediligano la tolleranza ed il mite castigo
e pensino a quella conquista che è la conquista (o vittoria) del Dharma, la quale
vale per questo e per l’altro mondo (ai halankika pāralankika). Tutta ed ogni gioia
sia quella gioia del Dharma che vale per questo e per l’altro mondo (unpublished
translation by Paolo Daffinà, provided in lessons in 2002 and in 2003).
The edicts of Kandahar are not so much to celebrate the monarch as to attest
to the export and reception of the moral precepts advocated. In the light of the
propaganda and the cultural diffusion for which they were composed to serve, the
use of Greek is perfectly understandable and, to my mind, is in no way to be seen
as a sign of physical possession of Arachosia in the Indian Empire (Maniscalco
2018).
Given that there can now be no way to prove Mauryan dominion over Ar-
achosia as from Chandragupta, we might conjecture conquest of it by Aśoka, but
the Greek-Aramaic edict of Kandahar discovered in April 1957 (dated to the tenth
year from the enthronement) follows two years after the conquest of Kaliṅga that
entailed so much bloodshed, for which the monarch made his abject contrition
clear. Now converted, the king chose to dedicate himself to goodness, to refraining
from killing animated beings, and to tolerance and education for his subjects and
neighbours (Maniscalco 2018). The theory of a conflict or invasion would clash
with those moral commitments to peace which the sovereign had set himself, and
indeed the contents of the inscriptions would have proved vain hypocrisy.
Returning to the pact, let us consider the last clause of the κῆδος or ἐπιγαμία.
In Appian (Συριακή, LV) κῆδος translates “relatedness by marriage, matrimonial
alliance,” while ἐπιγαμία corresponds to the juridical definition of ius connubii,
‘marriage between subjects of different cities’ (Strabo V, 231), but it can also mean
‘matrimonial allianceʼ (XI, 523). Tarn (1951: 174) credits Appian’s account, hold-
ing that Seleucus gave a daughter or niece as Chandragupta’s bride. He dismisses
the objection that Phila II, the only daughter of Seleucus known to the sources,
had yet to be born when the pact was made by imagining another daughter (per-
haps even from Apamea, unknown to us). He concludes that during the Parthian
campaign against Fraates II (138-128 BC), son of Mithridates I of Parthia (171-
138 BC), Antiochus VII Sidetes (139/138-129 BC) also took his niece with him,
and that she then became the bride of the Parthian sovereign. The court of Fraates
II was, of course, not Chandragupta’s, but Tarn’s conjecture is not unreasonable
and had the support of Thapar (1961: 20). Daffinà (1967: 35)—followed for some
time Tarn—subsequently (1975-1976: 23-24) preferred the interpretation by
Foucher (1942-1947: 313-314), who in turn had Bouché-Leclerq to thank (1913:
29-30): epigamia was the juridical convention that authorised and recognised
mixed marriages between two communities, and thus between Hellenes and In-
dians. Bernard (1985: 92-93) and Coloru (2009: 142-143), too, follow this inter-
pretation.
According to Bernard, however, it needs to be rectified: when Arachosia came

under the sovereignty of the Maurya, the Greek legislation was no longer valid,
and Seleucus’ aim was to safeguard the Greeks who were left with the matrimonial
agreement between them and the autochthonous Iranian—and not Indian—popu-
lation. Bernard’s position is logical since he recognises and attributes significance
to the Iranian presence, but works from premises we cannot share.
To reconcile the prohibition of marriage outside the caste in traditional Indian
society and the hypothesis of mixed marriage between Indians and Greeks, the
theoretically very rigid caste system allowed for a certain mobility, as Filliozat and
Renou suggest (1947: 375):
[…] la notion de caste n’est pas stricte: l’endogamie n’est pas absolue, des
unions attestées entre ārya et çūdra et inversement; il n’est pas question d’im-
pureté de caste, de prohibition de commensalité. Seules demeurent en somme
les caractéristique d’hérédite et de métier. Enfin aucun dénomination stable ne
visait ce qu’on appellera plus tard ‘les hors-castes.’
The Greeks may have been attributed with membership of a caste (Skurzak
1964: 225-229), and so were not considered mleccha—non-Aryan foreigners (de
la Vallée-Poussin 1930: 59)—, but lapsed ksatriya (Foucher 1905-1922: 450). This
latter point has not been settled, but I believe that neither of the two proposals
should be rejected out of hand. The fact that mixed marriages were permitted is
consistent with the context of the areas in question and had profound significance
in allowing for integration between those who remained and the indigenous popu-
lation. After all, the matrimonial alliance between Seleucids and Maurya was hy-
pothetically legitimate. Choosing one does not necessarily exclude the other. And
indeed hadn’t Tarn himself pointed out the broad meaning of ἐπιγαμία?
Sibyrtius Satrap of Arachosia and Megasthenes Resident at His Court
Daffinà (1977: 22), followed by Bussagli (1984: 44-46), compares Megasthe-

nes ‘ai residenti britannici, un tempo collocati presso i vari mahārāja dell’India,
allo scopo di sorvegliarli, sia pure con discrezione.’
The stages in Sibyrtius’ political career are well-documented, given the dif-
ficulty of reconstructing the pattern of Asian satrapies and hasty alliances after the
death of Alexander. To understand the hypothesis advanced on his guest, we must
briefly review the ascent of Sibyrtius.
On arriving in Gedrosia on the march back to Babylon, Alexander dismissed
Apollophanes from governorship of the satrapy and appointed Toantes. Shortly
after, on the death of the latter, the appointment went to Sibyrtius, formerly satrap
of Carmania, at the head of the satrapy combining Gedrosia and Arachosia (An.
VI, 27, 1; Hist. IX, 10, 10; Justin XIII, 4, 22). When Perdiccas took on the regency,
he redistributed the powers of the satrapies and confirmed Sibyrtius in his position
(Diodorus Siculus XVIII, 3, 3). Sibyrtius was not compromised by the fall of Per-
diccas, and in the power pattern subsequent to Triparadisus he retained his role. In
the turmoil following on the death of Antipater (319 BC) Sibyrtius, together with
many Asian satraps, combined his forces with those of Eumenes against Antigonus.
He sent a contingent of 1000 foot-soldiers and 610 horsemen (Diodorus Siculus
XIX, 14, 6), by no means comparable with that of Peucestas for importance, and
modest even in comparison with the contingent of Oxyartes of Bactria. On the
same occasion they were joined by the forces of Èudemus, in particular king Porus’
120 elephants acquired by trickery once the king was killed (318 BC; Diodorus
Siculus XIX, 14, 6). In the jumble of short-lived alliances and betrayals character-
ising this phase, Eumenes decided to punish Sibyrtius and sought to get rid of him
once and for all with a series of ruses. Brown (1957: 14) interpreted Eumenes’ vin-
dictive efforts as a way to terrorise Peucestas, Sibyrtius being a faithful friend of
his. Sibyrtius evaded the traps and snares, taking shelter in his dominion (Diodorus
Siculus XIX, 23, 4). On the fall of Eumenes, Sibyrtius took the side of Antigonus
who entrusted him with the military corps of the Argyraspides and with the secret
mission to send them to their death since they had betrayed Eumenes for Antigonus
Monophthalmus, who no longer trusted them. Sibyrtius promptly carried out the
orders (Diodorus Siculus XIX, 48, 3), and from then on found no more mention in
the sources.
According to Beloch (1925-1927, IV, 2: 360; Daffinà 1967: 33-34), after the
pact the Paropamisadai were brought together at Arachosia and entrusted to Si-
byrtius. Satrap of a frontier province, part of his duties consisted in keeping watch
over neighbouring Porus. Moreover, he was probably complying with the policy
of his friend Peucestas—who had taught Alexander Iranian (Diodorus Siculus
XXX, 2-3)—
[…] a shining example of Alexander’s attempt to win the support of his new
subjects by respecting their customs (...) he may be regarded as representative
of the new kind of administrator Alexander was beginning to develop with an
eye to the future. (Brown, 1957: 14-15).
As for Megasthenes (Strabo, II, 1, 9 (70); XV, 1, 36 (702); XV, 1, 53 (709);

NH VI, 5; An. V, 6, 2; Ind. V, 3; Stromata I, 72, 4), in a celebrated passage drawing
comparisons between Indian, Hebrew and Christian philosophies Clemens Alex-
andrinus (Stromata I, 72, 4 = FGrHist III c, t 1: 603; FHG II: 397-439) defined
Megasthenes ὁ συγγραφεὺς ὁ Σελεύκῳ τῷ Νικάτορι συμβεβιωκώς, ʽthe writer as-
sociated with Seleucus Nicatorʼ. The verb used to express the connection between
the two (συμβιόω) indicates not only contemporaneity (Bosworth 1996: 114) but
more particularly a close bond. Arrian (An. V, 6, 2) writes:
Μεγασϑένης, ὃς ξυνῆν μὲν Σιβυρτίῳ τῷ σατράπῃ τῆς Ἀραχωσίας, πολλάκις δὲ

λέγει ἀφικέσται παρὰ Σανδράκοττον τὸν Ἰνδῶν βασιλέα.
Megasthenes, who was a man in the circle of Sibyrtius satrap of Arachosia, says
he often made his way to Sandracottus king of the Indians.
In Ind. V, 3:
Μεγασϑένης [...] συγγενέσϑαι γάρ Σανδρακόττῳ λέγει, τῷ μεγίστῳ βασιλεῖ Ἰνδῶν,

καὶ Πώρῷ ἔτι τουτου μείζονι.
Megasthenes says he went to Sandracottus, the greatest Indian king, and Porus
even greater than he.
In 1846, although the text raised no problems of linguistic kind, Schwanbeck

emended the second part of the period as καὶ Πώρου ἔτι τουτῳ μείζονι; thus we
would have “Megasthenes states that he went to Sandracottus, the greatest Indian
king, even greater than Porus,” for Schwanbeck deemed it impossible that Mega-
sthenes could ever have met Porus. Daffinà (1975-1976: 40) found the amendment
syntactically unsatisfactory, but attributed Megasthenes’ alleged visit to Porus, too,
to a misunderstanding on the part of Arrian. Bosworth (1996: 120) returns to Ar-
rian’s original text, arguing that since Megasthenes knew Porus (killed in 318 BC
by Èudemus) he did go as ambassador but of Sibyrtius, and not Seleucus, who at
the time was seeking safety in the Egypt of Ptolemy. Brown first aired his conjec-
ture in 1955,41 and more decidedly in 1957.42 Bearzot (2007: 27-28) argues that
[…] il paragone tra Chandragupta e Porus sembra poco comprensibile al 304-

303, quando le satrapie create da Alessandro erano ormai state assorbite dal-
l’impero maurya, ma lo diviene perfettamente se l’ambasceria di Megasthenes
va collocata in un momento più vicino alla morte di Alessandro. L’ambasceria
andrebbe inserita nel contesto della guerra di Antigonus cui Sibyrtius era fedele,
contro Pitone satrapo della Media, quindi nel 319-318; gli Indiká dovrebbero
perciò risalire al 310.
If, on the other hand, we accepted the possibility that Megasthenes could have
known Porus—which I would not dismiss given the evidence of Arrian —, would
it invalidate the conjecture that he subsequently served as Seleucus’ ambassador
to Pāṭaliputra? Why should one rule out the other? We know very little about
Megasthenes, as Brown rightly points out, but the facts we have do not clash. If,
as Beloch held,43 Sibyrtius remained faithful to Seleucus, considering that Mega-
sthenes belonged to his circle, the satrap could have put Megasthenes in the service
of the sovereign, thereby becoming his ambassador.
That Megasthenes and Porus met does not preclude the possibility of a connec-
tion between Megasthenes and Seleucus, which Clemens demonstrates, and it is
not evidential to backdate the diplomatic mission. It seems to me far more unlikely
41
“No one can be sure whether it was Seleucus or Sibyrtius who sent him to Sandrocottus”
(Brown 1955: 18 n. 1).
42
“We learn that he was sent, not who sent him” (Brown 1957: 15).
43
Beloch (1925-1927, IV, 1: 462) held that, to begin with, Megasthenes represented
Sibyrtius, but also that after 305 BC he became Seleucus’ legate to the Mauryan court. The
conjecture is preferable to those of Bearzot and Bosworth.
to take Megasthenes to have served as Sibyrtius’ ambassador to Porus and Chan-

dragupta on the basis of comparison between the two. As for Bearzot’s improponi-
bile comparison, like Schwarz (1975: 196) we should bear in mind Arrian’s “typical
lack of interest in the historical development after Alexander.” The writer was not
thinking of Megasthenes, nor of Porus, nor indeed was he interested in Chandra-
gupta, his sole aim being to celebrate the deeds of Alexander, and at the time of
Alexander’s descent upon India Porus was clearly the greatest sovereign of all. Thus
we have little difficulty in imagining Arrian attributing to Megasthenes a compari-
son that we may find inappropriate but which he could have found perfectly apt
and functional. The historian provides no data on the time—he does not state that
Megasthenes met Porus and Chandragupta in the same period of time, although
Bosworth and Bearzot seem to take it for granted; he only says that they met.
The absence of chronological reference needs to be taken into account. The
lack of clear data opens the way to speculation, but the formal beginning of a di-
plomatic mission should more logically be when relations between the two sover-
eigns were institutionalised, and so as from the agreement between Seleucus and
Chandragupta. Seleucus’ son and successor, Antiochus I Soter (294-262/261 BC),
also sent a messenger to the court of Bindusāra, Deìmachus di Platea, perpetuating
the practice introduced by his father. There was an exchange of missives between
the two monarchs and fruitful relations were established between India and the
Egypt of Ptolemy. From the account by Callixenus of Rhodes of the triumph cel-
ebrated at Alexandria in 271-270 BC by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 BC)
we can deduce that oxen, dogs and probably young girls were imported from India.
Ptolemy II also sent an emissary to the father of Aśoka, a certain Dionysius (De-
imacus T 1 = Strabo II, 19 = FGrHist III c, 639; Athenaeus XIV, 652-653 =
FGrHist III c, 641; Dionysius, T 1 = NH VI, 58; Solinus LII, 3 = FGrHist III c:
641; Callixenus of Rhodes, F 2 = Athenaeus V, 32, 201a = FGrHist, III c, 173, 21,
29; 174, 10-11; Tarn 1951: 366-367, 374; Daffinà 1977: 12-14). The second point
raised by Bosworth (1996: 125) concerns the description of the
[…] cities (πόλεις), as Megasthenes termed them; this has been conceived as a
problem in the period of the Mauryan Empire, […] Megasthenes’ picture of au-
tonomous communities coexisting with royal administration reflects rather the
state of India at the time of Alexander’s conquest.
The πόλεις to which the historian refers prove, according to Bosworth, that he
was writing when Chandragupta’s dominion was yet to be established. However,
as Patrizia Cannata pointed out to me, before Chandragupta there was in any case
a monarchic system maintained by the Nanda, the last of which was in fact de-
throned and killed by Chandragupta. Another objection is that Megasthenes viewed
events with Greek eyes, reflecting this view. Emblematic is the analysis of Indian
society divided into seven categories. According to Daffinà (1975-1976: 40)
[…] appare evidente che Megastene fa una certa confusione tra caste e categorie
professionali. La realtà egli la osserva molto attentamente, ma la riporta (com’è
naturale) agli schemi propri degli uomini del suo tempo e della sua cultura. Per
arrivare a cogliere quella realtà noi dobbiamo, perciò, infrangere lo schema e
riordinare le sue notizie con criteri più organici che consentano una migliore
intelligenza dei fatti descritti.
In the light of this observation, backdating Megasthenes’ diplomatic mission

because he mentions the πόλεις does not seem to make much sense.
EDITIONS OF THE ANCIENT AUTHORS
Unless further indications are given, quotation of the Greek and Latin authors is to be under-
stood to be from the editions of the Loeb Classical Library. Below are listed the Greek
authors, reference editions being those by F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen His-
toriker, Leiden, 1962, and by C. Müller, Th. Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum,
Paris, 1841-1855: Aristobulus, Athenaeus, Callixenus of Rhodes, Clement of Alexandria,
Ctesias of Cnidus, Deimachus, Dexippus, Dionysius, Isidore of Charax, Megasthenes, Near-
chus of Crete, Nicolaus Damascenus, Solinus.
Appian (2008) Histoire Romaine, Livre XI, le livre siriaque, eds. P. Goukowsky, F. Hinard.
Paris.
Arrian (2000) L’India, eds. A. Oliva, D. Ambaglio. Bari.
Arrian (2001) Anabasi di Alessandro, I-II, eds. F. Sisti, A. Zambrini. Milano.
Claudius Ptolemy (1971) Geographie 6, 9-21. Ostiran und Zentralasien, teil I, ed. I. Ronca.
Roma.
Quintus Curtius Rufus (2005) Storie di Alessandro Magno, I-II, eds. T. Gargiulo, J.E. Atkinson.
Milano.
Diodorus Siculus (1976) Bibliothèque Historique, Livre XVII, ed. P. Goukowsky. Paris.
Diodorus Siculus (2004) Biblioteca Storica, Libri I-IV, eds. G. Cordiano, M. Zorat.
Milano.
Justin (1922) Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi, ed. M. Galdi. Augusta
Taurinorum.
Justin (1997) Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Volume II Books 13-
15: the Successors to Alexander the Great, eds. J.C. Yardley, P. Wheatley, W. Heckel.
Oxford.
Paulus Orosius (1976) Storie contro i pagani, I-II, ed. A. Lippold. Milano.
Pliny the Elder (1982) Storia Naturale I, Cosmologia e Geografia, Libri I-VI, eds. A.
Barchiesi, R. Centi, M. Corsaro, A. Marcone, G. Ranucci. Torino.
Stephanus of Byzantium (1849) Stephani Byzantii ethnicorum quae supersunt, ed. A.
Meineke. Berolini.
Strabo (2008) Geographika, Band I-X, mit Übersetzung und Kommentar herausgegeben
von S.L. Radt. Göttingen.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bearzot, C. (2007) Autoctonia, rifiuto della mescolanza, civilizzazione: da Isocrate a Me-

gastene. In Gnoli, Muccioli: 7-29.
Beloch, K.J. (1925-1927) Griechische Geschichte, Band IV, Die griechische Weltherschaft.
Berlin-Leipzig.
Benveniste, É. (1958) Les données iraniennes. In D. Schlumberger, L. Robert, A. Dupont-
Sommer, Une bilingue gréco-araméenne d’Asoka. Journal Asiatique, 246, 35-48.
Bernard, P. (1974) Un problem de toponymie antique dans l’Asie Centrale: les noms anciens
de Qandahar. Studia iranica, 3, 171-185.
Bernard, P. (1985) Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum IV. Les monnaies hors trésors, question d’histoire
gréco-bactrienne. Memoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan,
t. XXVIII. Paris.
Bernard, P. (2005) Hellenistic Arachosia. A Greek Melting Pot in Action. East and West,
55, 13-34.
Bernard, P., G.J. Pinault, G. Rougemont (2004) Deux nouvelles inscriptions grecques de
l’Asie Centrale. Journal des Savants, juillet-décembre 2004, 227-356.
Bernard, P., G. Rougemont (2012) Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, part II, Inscriptions
of the Seleucid and Partian periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia, vol. I, In-
scriptions in non-Iranian languages. Inscriptions grecques d’Iran et d’Asie centrale,
School of Oriental and African Studies. London.
Berthelot, A. (1930) L’Asie ancienne centrale et sud-orientale d’après Ptolémée. Paris.
Bevan, E.R. (1902) The House of Seleucus. London.
Biffi, N. (2005) L’Estremo Oriente di Strabone: libro XV della Geografia, Invigilata Lu-
cernis, 26. Bari.
Bombaci, A. (1957) Ghazni. East and West, 3, October 1957, 247-260.
Bongard-Levin, G.M. (1985) Mauryan India. New Delhi.
Bosworth, A.B. (1980) Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, vol. I (Commentary
on books I-III). New York.
Bosworth, A.B. (1995) Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander, vol. II (Commentary
on books IV-V). New York.
Bosworth, A.B. (1996) The Historical Setting of Megasthenes’Indica. Classical Philology,
91, n. 2, aprile 1996, 113-127.
Bouché-Leclercq, A. (1913) Histoire des Séleucides. Paris.
Briant, P. (1996) Histoire de l’Empire Perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris.
Brown, T.S. (1955) The Reliability of Megasthenes. The American Journal of Philology,
76, 18-33.
Brown, T.S. (1957) The Merits and Weaknesses of Megasthene. Phoenix, 1, Spring 1957,
12-24.
Bussagli, M. (1947) Note sulla ‘Fonte di Trogo’ per gli avvenimenti indiani. Rendiconti
dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche,
s. VIII, II, 10-30.
Bussagli, M. (1956) Indian Events in Trogus Pompeius. Search for a lost source. East and
West, 7/3, 229-243.
Bussagli, M. (1984) L’arte del Gandhāra. Roma.
Cannata, P. (2008) L’India ai tempi del Buddha, conference held in Roma, ISIAO, 15 May
2008.
Capdetrey, L. (2007) Le pouvoir séleucide. Territoire, administration, finances d’un
royaume hellénistique (312-129 avant J.-C.). Rennes.
Charpentier, J. (1928) Amitraghata. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1928, 132-135.
Christol, A. (1983) Les Édits grecs d’Aśoka: Étude linguistique. Journal Asiatique, 271,
25-42.
Coloru, O. (2009) Da Alessandro a Menandro. Il regno Greco di Bactrian. Studi Ellenistici,
31. Pisa-Roma.
Daffinà, P. (1960) Recensione de Gli Editti di Aśoka (G. Pugliese Carratelli). Rivista degli
Studi Orientali, 35, 208-211.
Daffinà, P. (1967) L’immigrazione dei Sakā nella Drangiana. Reports and Memoirs, IX,
IsMEO. Roma.
Daffinà, P. (1974-1975) Elementi di geografia ed etnografia storiche dell’Asia interna, de-
sunti dalle fonti classiche. Dispense di storia dell’Asia centrale, a.a. 1974-1975. Roma
(unpublished).
Daffinà, P. (1975-1976) India, Iran e Asia centrale in età preislamica, dispense di storia
dell’India e dell’Asia centrale, a.a. 1975-1976. Roma (unpublished).
Daffinà, P. (1977) India e mondo classico. Nuovi risultati e prospettive. Annali della facoltà
di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Macerata, 10, 10-33.
Daffinà, P. (1982) On Kaspapyros and the So Called ‘Shore of the Scythians.’ Acta Antiqua
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, T. 28, f. 1-4, 1-8.
Daffinà, P. (1988) Senso del tempo e senso della storia: computi cronologici e storicizza-
zione del tempo. Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 61, 1-71.
Daffinà, P. (1992) Sull’uso della scrittura nell’India antica. Rivista degli Studi Orientali,
65, 13-39.
De Romanis, F. (1996) Cassia, Cinnamomo, Ossidiana: uomini e merci tra Oceano Indiano
e Mediterraneo. Roma.
Droysen, G. (1878) Geschichte der Epigonen, II. Gotha.
Eggermont, P.H.L. (1965-66) New Notes on Aśoka and His Successors. Persica, 2, 27-70.
Falk, H. (2007) The Names of the Pāratarājas Issuing Coins with Kharoṣṭhī Legends. The
Numismatic Chronicle, 167, 171-178.
Filliozat, J. (1978) La date de l’avènement de Candragupta, roi de Magadha. Journal des
Savants, 175-184.
Filliozat, J., L. Renou (1947) L’Inde Classique. Manuel des études indiennes (avec le con-
cours de P. Meile, A.M. Esnoul, L. Silburn). Paris.
Foucher, A. (1905-1922) L’Art gréco-bouddique du Gandhāra, I-II. Paris.
Foucher, A. (1942-1947) La Vieille Route de l’Inde de Bactres à Taxila, Mémoires de la
délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan, I-II. Paris.
Fraser, P.M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford.
Fussman, G. (1974) Quelques problems aśokéens. Journal Asiatique, 262, 369-389.
Fussman, G. (2009) Kandahar II. Pre-Islamic Monuments and Remains. Encyclopaedia
Iranica, vol. XV, V, 475-477.
Gabba, E. (1966) Sulle influenze reciproche degli ordinamenti militari dei Parti e dei Ro-
mani. Atti del Convegno sul tema: la Persia e il mondo greco-romano (Roma 11-14
aprile 1965). Roma, 51-73.
Geyer, F. (1923) Sibyrtios. RE, II A, col. 2183-2184.
Gnoli, T., F.M. Muccioli, eds. (2007) Incontri tra culture nell’Oriente ellenistico e romano.
Milano.
Goukowsky, P. (1978) Essai sur l’origines du mythe d’Alexandre (336-270 av. J.-C.), I.
Les origins politiques. Nancy.
Grainger, J.D. (1990) Seleukos Nikator. Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom. London-New-
York.
Hermann, A. (1920) Sakastane. RE, I A, 2, col. 1807-1812.
Hermann, A. (1932) Tatakene. RE, IV A, col. 2462.
Hermann, A. (1949) Paraitakene. RE, XVIII, col. 1182.
Herzfeld, E.E. (1931-1932) Sakastān. Archaelogische Mitteilungen aus Iran, IV, 1-116.
Holt, F.L. (1989) Alexander the Great and Bactria. The Formation of a Greek Frontier in
Central Asia. Leiden-New York.
Jouguet, P. (1928) Macedonian Imperialism and the Hellenization of the East. New
York.
Kartunnen, K. (1997) India and the Hellenistic World. Studia Orientalia, 83. Helsinki.
Krom, N.J. (1909) Seleukos und Candragupta. Hermes, 44, 154-157.
Kuhrt, A. (2007) The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period.
Abingdon-New York.
Lassen, Ch. (1849) Indische Altertumskunde, II. Leipzig-London.
La Vallée Poussin, A. (1930) L’Inde aux temps des Mauryas et des Barbares, Grecs, Scythes
et Yue-tchi. Histoire du Monde publiée sous la direction de M.E. Cavaignac, Tome VI,
1. Paris.
Macdonald, G. (1955) The Hellenic Kingdoms of Syria, Bactria and Parthia. In Rapson:
384-419.
Mairs, R. (2008) Greek Identity and the Settler Community in Hellenistic Bactria and
Arachosia. Journal of Migrations and Identities, 1, 19-43.
Majumdar, R.C. (1977) Ancient India. Benares.
Maniscalco, F. (2018) A New Interpretation of the Edicts of Aśoka from Kandahar. Annali
di Ca’ Foscari. Serie orientale, 54, giugno 2018, 239-263.
Mazzarino, S. (1956) Asia anteriore ellenistico-romana. In Tucci: 169-198.
Mookerji, R.K. (1940) Chandragupta Maurya and His Times. Madras.
Mukherjee, B.N. (1972) The Paradas: a Study in Their Coinage and History. Calcutta.
Musti, D. (1966) Lo stato dei Seleucidi. Dinastia popoli città da Seleuco I ad Antioco III.
Studi Classici e Orientali, 15. Pisa.
Musti, D. (1977) Syria and the East. The Cambridge Ancient History, VII, 1. The Hellenistic
World. Cambridge, 175-220.
Musti, D. (1989) Storia Greca. Roma-Bari.
Newell, E.T. (1938) The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucuss I to Anti-
ochus III. New York.
Niese, B. (1893-1903) Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der
Schlacht bei Chaeronea. Gotha.
Préaux, C. (1978) Le Monde Hellénistique. La Grèce et l’Orient 323-146 av. J.-C., Tome
1. Paris.
Pugliese Carratelli, G. (1953) Asoka e i re ellenistici. La Parola del Passato, 8, 449-454.
Pugliese Carratelli, G. (2003) Gli editti di Aśoka. Milano.
Rapson, E.J. (1905) Notes on Indian Coins and Seals. Part IV. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 1905, 783-814.
Rapson, E.J., ed. (1955) The Cambridge History of India. Delhi.
Robert, L. (1958) Observations sur l’inscription grecque. In D. Schlumberger, A. Dupont-
Sommer, É. Benveniste, Une bilingue gréco-araméenne d’Asoka. Journal Asiatique,
246, 1-18.
Rostovtzeff, M. (1966) Storia economica e sociale del mondo ellenistico, II, III. Firenze.
Santi Amantini, L., ed. (1989) Storie Filippiche. Epitome da Pompeo Trogo. Milano.
Scharfe, H. (1971) The Maurya Dynasty and the Seleucids. Zeitschrift für Verleigchende
Sprachforschung, 85, 211-225.
Schlumberger, D. (1958) Introduction. L’inscription grecque. In L. Robert, A. Dupont-
Sommer, É. Benveniste, Une bilingue gréco-araméenne d’Asoka. Journal Asiatique, 246.
Schmitt, H.H. (1964) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antiochos’des Grossen und seiner
Zeit. Wiesbaden.
Schmitt, R. (1979) Arachosia. Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. II, fasc. III, 246-247.
Schober, L. (1981) Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Babyloniens und der Oberen Satrapien
von 323-303 v. Chr. Frankfurt am Main.
Schwanbeck, E.A. (1846, 19672) Megasthenis Indica. Fragmenta collegit, commentationem

et indices adjecit. Bonn.
Schwarz, F.F. (1975) Arrian’s Indike on India: Intention and Reality. East and West, 25,
181-200.
Senior, R.C. (2001) Indo-Scythian Coins and History. London.
Sherwin-White, S., A. Kuhrt (1993) From Samarkhand to Sardis. A New Approach to the
Seleucid Empire. London.
Skurzak, L. (1964) Le traité syro-indien de paix en 305, selon Strabon et Appien d’Alexandrie.
EOS, 54, 225-229.
Smith, V.A. (1924) The Early History of India. Oxford.
Taddei, M. (1972) India antica. Milano.
Tandon, P. (2006) New Light on the Pāratarājas. Numismatic Chronicle, 166, 201-238.
Tarn, W.W. (1930) The Nomad Invasion of Parthia, 116-122; The Bactrian Satrapies of
Eastern Tapuria and Traxiane, 122-126; Seleucid Administrative Subdivisions, 126-
135. Proceedings of the British Academy, XVI.
Tarn, W.W. (1939) Review of The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints from Seleucus I
to Antiochos III, by E. T. Newell. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 59, 321-322.
Tarn, W.W. (1941) Two Notes on Seleucid History. Seleucus’500 Elephants. Tarmita. The
Journal of Hellenic Studies, 61, 84-94.
Tarn, W.W. (1948) Alexander the Great, I-II. Cambridge.
Tarn, W.W. (1951) The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge.
Thapar, R. (1961) Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. New York.
Thomas, F.W. (1955) Chandragupta the Founder of the Maurya Empire. In Rapson: 420-440.
Tscherikower, V. (1927) Die Hellenistischen Städtegründungen von Alexander dem Grossen
bis auf die Römerzeit, Philologus, Supplementband XIX, Heft I. Leipzig.
Tucci, G., ed. (1956) Le civiltà dell’Oriente. Volume primo. Storia. Roma.
Vogelsang, W. (1985) Early Historical Arachosia in South-East Afghanistan. Iranica Anti-
qua, 20, 55-99.
Vogelsang, W. (1992) The Rise and Organization of the Achaemenid Empire. The Eastern
Iranian Evidence. Leiden-New York-Köln.
Von Gutschmid, A. (1888) Geschichte Irans und Seiner Nachbarländer von Alexander dem
Grossen bis zum Untergang der Arsaciden. Tübingen.
Widemann, F. (2009) Les successeurs d’Alexandre en Asie centrale et leur heritage culturel.
Paris.
Will, É. (1979-1982) Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, 323-30 av. J.-C. Nancy.
Wolski, J. (1939-1945) [1947] L’effondrement de la domination des Séleucides en Iran au
IIIᵉ siècle av.J.-C. Bulletin International de l’Académie Polonaise de Sciences et des
Lettres, Classe d’Histoire et de Philosophie, Suppl. 5, 1939-1945 [1947], 13-70.
Wolski, J. (1960) Les Iraniens et le royaume gréco-bactrien. Klio, 38, 110-127.
Summary
The agreement between Seleucus Nicator and Chandragupta Maurya, drawn

up roughly between 305 and 303 BC, subsequent to the oriental campaign for Se-
leucid reconquest, consisted of three clauses, namely Seleucus’ renunciation of the
Easternmost territories of his kingdom; the gift of 500 elephants by Chandragupta
to Seleucus; and κῆδος (Appian) or ἐπιγαμία (Strabo). The classical sources on the
pact (Pompeius Trogus in the epitome by Justin, Appian, Strabo) attest to Seleucus’
ceding of terrritory (limited to the Eastern areas and along the course of the Indus,
of Paropamisadai, Arachosia and Gedrosia) to Chandragupta (Strabo). With the aim
of clearing the field of the objections to this scenario (Bernard, Fussman, Coloru),
we start from the role and relations of Arachosia in and with the Indian East as from
the Achaemenid period. For Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and Megasthenes, Se-
leucus’ ambassador/spy (Daffinà, Bussagli) to Pāṭaliputra, resident at his court, I
find no justification in taking the former to be a Mauryan satrap or the latter a
relative of his (Bernard), nor indeed in taking Megasthenes to be an ambassador of
Sibyrtius only because Arrian records that he met both Porus and Chandragupta
(Bosworth).

Maniscalco Bussagli

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Maniscalco Bussagli

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Il Novissimo Ramusio

ISMEO – ASSOCIAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE DI STUDI

L’eredità umana e scientifica

a cura di Marco Bussagli, Paola D’Amore, Pierfrancesco Fedi,

- Progetto MIUR “Studi e ricerche sulle culture dell’Asia e dell’Africa:

- Banca Centro - Credito Cooperativo Toscana-Umbria

TUTTI I DIRITTI RISERVATI

© 2021 Scienze e Lettere S.r.l.

© Museo delle Civiltà

© ISMEO Associazione Internazionale di Studi sul Mediterraneo e l’Oriente

Layout by Marco Baldi

Prefazione di Adriano V. Rossi .................................................................. IX

Introduzione del Comitato Organizzatore ................................................... 1

Mario Bussagli – Biografia di un umanista fra Oriente e Occidente ........ 11

LA LEZIONE UMANA E SCIENTIFICA DI MARIO BUSSAGLI

Mc. Bussagli, Mario Bussagli, mio padre ................................................. 27

LE PORTE D’ORIENTE: DAL NILO AL SISTAN

G. Lombardo, Relations between Nomads and Sedentary People in the

INDIA, GANDHĀRA E ASIA CENTRALE TRA ARTE E STORIA

F. Maniscalco, Arachosiaca I: the Rule of Arachosia and the Role of Mega-

L. Giuliano, Studies in Early Śaiva Iconography (II): Oēšo-Śiva and the

LA VIA DEL BUDDHA: TRA INDIA, GANDHĀRA E ASIA CENTRALE

M. Spagnoli, Note sui cosiddetti Buddha kapardin di Mathurā ................ 245

LA VIA DEL BUDDHA: IL TIBET TRA PASSATO E PRESENTE

P. Mortari Vergara Caffarelli, Persistenza nel Tibet Buddhista di riti e

DAL ‘PAESE DI MEZZO’ A QUELLO DEL ‘SOL LEVANTE’

F. Salviati, La Cina imperiale delle origini: Osservazioni sui contatti ar-

EURASIA: ORIENTE E OCCIDENTE

M.A. Polichetti, Hints on Religious Symbology ........................................ 423

M.G. Chiappori, La frontiera mobile: il confronto culturale tra l’Occidente

EURASIA: IMMAGINI, SCRITTI E IDEE A COLLOQUIO

Mc. Bussagli, Jheronimus Bosch e l’Oriente. Un interesse di padre in figlio 479

Plates ......................................................................................................... 559

Arachosiaca I: the Rule of Arachosia and the Role of Megasthenes,

rius—they were led by Mauakes, they were archers on horseback. 4 Barsaëntes,

Satibarzanes and Barsaëntes.7 Alexander arrived immediately after the death of

3 Iam Hydaspen Alexander superare decreuerat, cum Barzaentes, defectionis

I am inclined, rather, to the hypothesis of Zoroastrian origins in Sistan (Gnoli

land of Saēna, son of Ahūm.stut (Sēn ī Ahūm-stutān ī Bustīg). Saēna, together

καὶ κατέχουσι τὰ μὲν πρὸϛ τῇ Ἀρείᾳ Δαράνδαι, τὰ δὲ πρὸϛ τῇ Ἀραχωσίᾳ Βάκτριοι,

[…] le Pendjab méridional autour de Kaspàpyros-Multān [...] Comme, de l’avis

The Rise of Seleucus Reconquering the Upper Satrapies

In the attempt to reorganise central power with the Triparadisus agreements

Seleucus’ Descent upon India and the Question of Alexandria Arachosia

A passage in Justin’s epitome (2nd-3rd century AD) of the Historiae Philippicae

Sic adquisito regno Sandrocottus ea tempestate, qua Seleucus futurae magni-

Sandrocottus, having taken over power in the kingdom—in that tempestuous

ness—possessed India; Seleucus, having secured an alliance with him and

Seleuco fu costretto a riconoscere il fatto compiuto. La testimonianza di Appiano

[…] il valore della campagna di Seleuco contro Chandragupta è facilmente rico-

To begin with, we should not underestimate the evidence offered by Appian

Principio Babyloniam cepit; inde auctis ex victoria viribus Bactrianos expug-

Musti, having no doubts about Seleucus’ military campaign in India (1966:

There is another observation we may make, looking back to Bouché-

Hērakleia-Achaia22 and Artakoana23 damaged or destroyed by the raids of the no-

[…] in questa parte dell’Asia si ha notizia dell’esistenza di un’altra sola Ale-

Ultimately, it is impossible to understand to which of the two Alexandropolis

Ἐν̇τεῦϑεν Ἀραχωσία, σχοῖνοι λ̅ς ταύτην δὲ οἱ Πάρϑοι Ἰνδικὴν Λευκὴν καλοῦσιν.

Dēmētrias;30 followed by Alexandropolis,31 the capital of Arachōsia; it is

Di questa Arachōsia che, tanto per intenderci, potremmo chiamare ʽclassicaʼ,

The Agreement between Seleucus Nicator and Chandragupta Maurya

The agreement between Seleucus and Chandragupta is placed between 305

Ἡ δὲ τάξις τῶν ἐϑνῶν τοιαύτη παρὰ μὲν τὸν Ἰνδὸν οἱ Παροπαμισάδαι, ὧν

Coloru (2009: 136) observed: