Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T09:49:05.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Euphrates as a Boundary between Rome and Parthia in the Late Republic and Early Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Peter Edwell
Peter Edwell*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, peter.edwell@mq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is generally agreed that during the first century BC the Euphrates River came to represent a negotiated boundary of Roman and Parthian power in the Near East, and that this remained the case until the overthrow of the Parthians by the Sassanians in the third century AD. It was during the first century BC that the term imperium began to be used in the context of expressions of corporate Roman power; this eventually saw an additional important usage of the term evolve to that of an expression of physical territory, that is, empire, by the end of the reign of Augustus. This paper argues that it is possible to link the development of the Euphrates as a boundary of Roman and Parthian power in the first century BC with developments and changes in the usage of the term imperium. It traces the history of Roman and Parthian agreements and conflicts throughout the first century BC in the context of the development of the Euphrates as a boundary. The paper also argues that only the upper section of the Euphrates came to play this role and that previous analyses of the middle Euphrates have produced a misleading understanding of Roman and Parthian activity on this section of the river. The analysis of archaeological evidence from the first centuries BC and AD from the middle Euphrates site of Dura Europos is employed to illuminate the analysis of the Euphrates as a boundary. We arrive at a better understanding of Dura's history during this period if we considert Dura in the broader context of the Euphrates’ role in dividing Roman and Parthian power.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 47: Thematic Issue: Culture, Identity and Politics in the Ancient Mediterranean World , 2013 , pp. 191 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Richardson, J.S., The Language of Empire (Cambridge 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 There is ongoing debate about the exact date of the meeting. See Keaveney, A., ‘Roman Treaties with Parthia C.95-C.64 BC’, AJP 102 (1981) 195–212Google Scholar.

3 Keaveney, , ‘Roman Treaties’ (n. 2) 197Google Scholar, is convinced that there was a formal alliance (foedus) under Sulla which included the recognition of the Euphrates as a boundary between the two powers. On the other hand, Sherwin-White, A.N., Roman Foreign Policy in the East: 168 BC to AD 1 (London 1984) 119-20Google Scholar, concludes that any arrangements made with the Parthians by Sulla (and later Lucullus) were informal only.

4 Sherwin-White, , Foreign Policy (n. 3) 220-1Google Scholar.

5 Keaveney, , ‘Roman Treaties’ (n. 2) 199Google Scholar.

6 The suggestion began with Bellinger, A., The Excavations at Dura Europos: Final Report Volume VI– The Coins (New Haven 1949) 200-1Google Scholar, and is still generally accepted. See e.g. Dirven, L., The Palmyrenes of Dura Europos (Leiden 1999) 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and for further discussion Edwell, P.M., Between Rome and Persia: The Middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Palmyra under Roman Control (London and New York 2008) 101-2Google Scholar.

7 Bellinger, Coins (n. 6) Plate II, no. 97b.

8 Bellinger, , Coins (n. 6) 201Google Scholar.

9 See especially Clarke, G. W.et al., Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates, vol. 1 (Sydney 2002)Google Scholar.

10 Gerkan, A. Von, ‘The Fortifications’, in Rostovtzeff, M.I., Bellinger, A., Hopkins, C. and Welles, C.B. (eds), The Excavations at Dura Europos: Preliminary Report of the Seventh and Eighth Seasons: 1933-1934 and 1934-1935 (New Haven 1936) 4–61Google Scholar.

11 Hopkins, C., The Discovery of Dura Europos (New Haven 1979) 257Google Scholar.

12 Leriche, P., ‘Chronologie du rempart de brique crue de Doura-Europos’, Syria 63 (1986) 61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Napoli, J., ‘Les remparts de la forteresse de Djazla sur le Moyen-Euphrate’, Syria 77 (2000) 117-36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Leriche, , ‘Chronologie’ (n. 12) 70Google Scholar.

15 Downey, S.B, Mesopotamian Religious Architecture (Princeton 1988) 93Google Scholar; Edwell, , Rome and Persia (n. 6) 103-4Google Scholar.

16 Rostovtzeff, et. al., Dura Report VII/VIII, 310, 318-20Google Scholar.

17 Ibid. 321; Dirven, , Palmyrenes of Dura (n. 6) 203-7Google Scholar; Edwell, , Rome and Persia (n. 6) 107-8Google Scholar.

18 Ibid. 107-12.

19 Bellinger, , Coins (n. 6) 7–9Google Scholar.

20 Richardson, , Language of Empire (n. 1) 132-4Google Scholar.

21 Ibid. 145.

22 Rankov, B., ‘Do Rivers Make Good Frontiers?’, in Visy, Z., Limes XIX. Proceedings of the XLXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Pecs, Hungary, September 2003 (Pécs 2005) 175-81Google Scholar; Braund, D., ‘River Frontiers in the Environmental Psychology of the Roman World’, in Kennedy, D.L. (ed.), The Roman Army in the East, JRA Supplementary Series 18 (Ann Arbor 1996), 43-7Google Scholar.

23 Sommer, C.S., ‘Why there? The Positioning of Forts along the Riverine Frontiers of the Roman Empire’, in Hanson, W.S. (ed.), The Army and Frontiers of Rome, JRA Supplementary Series 74 (Portsmouth RI 2009) 103-14Google Scholar.