Although no exact date can be offeredm, we can still argue that the epoch of 247 B.C. marks rather the commencement of the bid by Andragoras for power in Parthia than that of Arsaces and his Parni. The historicity of Andragoras is confirmed by the discovery of his gold and silver coins in the Oxus Treasure and more recently, by a Greek inscription published by Robert. The latter, indeed, refers to Andragoras as a satrap already under Antiochus I, and suggests that he may have held his office for nearly twenty years before he was overcome by the Parni. This circumstance makes it less likely that the satrap's rule could have been prolonged to so late a date as 238 B.C. According to what may have been regarded as the traditional account, the revolt of the Parni against Andragoras was led by two brothers, Arsaces the founder, and Tiridates; the latter is the Tiridates I of the Arsacid dynastic table. After the death of Arsaces, at a date not precisely known, Tiridates succeeded to the throne. He reigned until about 211 B.C., shortly before the eastern campaign of Antiochus III the Great. His successor, who apparently occupied the throne during the hostilities against Antiochus, was Artabanus I. The peace terms eventually agreed by the Parthians with Antiochus involved their formal acceptance of a feudatory status; but the rapid withdrawal of the Seleucid forces when Antiochus returned to the west, and in 189 B.C. sustained defeat at the hands of the Romans in the battle of Magnesia, meant that in fact the young kingdom was subjected to little interference. In about 191 B.C. Artabanus was in turn succeeded by his son Priapatius. The sketchy nature of the historical sources for these opening decades of the Arsacid kingdom has given rise to a number of sceptical hypotheses. One of these regarded the first Arsaces as a legendary figure, and tended to ascribe to Tiridates I the chief role in the establishment of the kingdom. Another interpretation, which was developed by Wolski, involved the assumption that Tiridates was legendary, and that in fact the first Arsaces reigned for more than thirty years. Moreover, Wolski rejects the historicity of an "Artabanus I " at this period, and interprets to the letter the statement of Justin (XLI 5. 6) that the son and successor of Arsaces was known by the same name. The majority of recent commentators accept Wolski's view, and commence the Arsacid dynastic list with Arsaces I and II. Yet plausible though this reasoning seems, the scanty evidence seems hardly sufficient to establish conclusively either of the two hypotheses or wholly to eliminate the possibility that certain elements of truth could be present in both the main historical traditions. Accordingly, the accompanying dynastic tables include both the older chronology, and that based on the views of Wolski, and subsequently elaborated by Le Rider. Moreover, the ostraca discovered in recent years at Nisa have tended to weigh against the more recent theories. Whilst the ostraca contain only fragmentary data of interest from the viewpoint of political history, such indications as they do provide harmonize satisfactorily with the "traditional" narrative. The text which has been most widely discussed for its historical implications in this connection is Ostracon No. 1760.
Foundation of Arsacid Kingdom: Beginning of Parthian Era
