The first fixed point in Parthian history is provided by the startingpoint of the Arsacid era, the vernal equinox of 247 B.C. The significance for the Parthians of this moment in time has been variously explained: by Gardner it was seen as the date of a Parthian revolt against Seleucid suzerainty; by Tarn, as the coronation year of Tiridates I, the second Parthian king. Another evident possibility is that it could represent the actual enthronement year of Arsaces I, the founder and eponym of the dynasty. However, this less sophisticated theory has until recently proved difficult to reconcile with the literary accounts relating to the foundation of the Arsacid kingdom. The plausibility of yet a fourth explanation for the origin of the era in 247 B.C. should also not be lost to view. Since the year 246 B.C. was the last of the reign of Antiochus II over the Seleucid empire, and allowance has moreover to be made for the autonomous reign of the satrap Andragoras in Parthia, it may be that 247 B.C. was reckoned the last year of legitimate Seleucid authority in the province, and that Arsaces subsequently backdated his regnal years to this moment and ignored the unconstitutional episode of Andragoras. The literary sources for the rise of the Arsacid dynasty have recently been re-examined in a series of articles by Wolski. Whilst the view had previously prevailed that the tribe of the Parni rose against the Seleucid authority in about 250 B.C., or at any rate shortly before 247 B.C, this scholar embarked upon a detailed source-criticism of the ancient texts which refer to the event, and has concluded that the version provided by Justin and Strabo is a distinct tradition, and superior to that represented by the fragments of Arrian's Parthica in Photius and Syncellus, and the statements of Eusebius. In Wolski's view, therefore, the authentic version is that the Seleucid satrapy of Bactria established its autonomy of the Seleucid kingdom in about 239 B.C. under its governor Diodotus; and that Arsaces established his independent rule in Parthia in the following year, 238 B.C. Shortly afterwards must have taken place the inconclusive eastern campaign of the Seleucid ruler Seleucus II Callinicus. After a number of skirmishes with the Parthians, he was obliged by further disturbances in Asia Minor to return to Antioch, and leave the newly founded Parthian kingdom to its own devices. In Wolski's opinion, indeed, "The socalled Arsacid era and the numismatic evidence are of no importance" for the question of chronology. Such an attitude may be thought extreme; yet if Wolski's interpretation of the literary sources can indeed be reconciled with a satisfactory explanation of the inauguration of the Arsacid era, as on the lines suggested above, it would be possible to arrive at an acceptable sequence of events.