Bak ians as Sel , Pa hians as O he ? The en anglemen s
o No h ‑Eas e n inbe weenness in he s udy o Hellenis ic
Cen al Asia
Milinda Hoo
ABSTRACT
The s udy o Hellenis ic Cen al Asia is, in many ways, an engagemen wi h a ious kinds o inbe weenness:
spa ial, empo al, cul u al, disciplina y, and his o iog aphical. One o he mos pe sis en keywo ds o cha
-
ac e ize his mac o egion is ha o ac oss oads o so s– ac oss oads o cul u es, eligions, his o ies, ci i-
liza ions, and ancien wo lds a la ge. Imme sed in exo ic appeal, he c oss oads mo i is no only p e alen
in popula na a i es on Cen al Asia bu also in schola ly discou se, al hough in mo e sub le and di e se
ways. As S .Go shenina analysed in he monumen al book, he idea o Cen al Asia was ‘in en ed’, and i s
concep ual i ine a y has been deeply en angled wi h shi ing geopoli ical in e es s ha amed and shaped
i s his o y in dis inc colonial and O ien alis ways h oughou ime. This emains p o oundly ele an o
he s udy o Hellenis ic Cen al Asia, pa icula ly he his o iog aphy o Bak ia and Pa hia, bo h in he pas
and in he p esen . W i ings o hei his o ies has been domina ed by acomplex legacy o meaning -making
concep s and cul u al ideas abou Hellenism, nomadism, he No h and he Eas – cons uc s laden wi h
ideologies o inbe weenness. This pape e lec s on he en anglemen s o ancien and mode n pe cep ions
o he No h -Eas as amac o egion o inbe weenness and i s impac on in e p e i e me hods in he s udy
o Hellenis ic Cen al Asia.
KEYWORDS
Bak ia; Pa hia; Hellenism; nomadism; O ien alism; wo ld iew; cul u al geog aphy; c i ical his o iog aphy;
inbe weenness.
INTRODUCTION: INBETWEENNESS
The concep ual igu a ion o Cen al Asia in he hi d o i s cen u ies BCE is sa u a ed by
inbe weenness. Th oughou his o y, he an iqui y o his mac o egion has been spa ially
pe cei ed and cul u ally amed as pe iphe al o he g ea ci iliza ions o he Wes and he
Eas , associa ed wi h G eece and Rome on he one hand and China on he o he . Indeed, one
o he mos pe sis en keywo ds o cha ac e ize Cen al Asia is ha o ac oss oads o so s;
ac oss oads o cul u es, eligions, his o ies, ci iliza ions, and ancien wo lds a la ge (see
e oca i e book i les e.g. E ing on– C ibb 1992; Hiebe – Cambon 2011; Olb ych 2021).
Imagined a he nexus o Eu asian anscon inen al ade, Cen al Asia’spe cei ed pe iphe ali-
y is in ica ely linked o adis inc ype o cen ali y, a ansi zone amids dis an des ina ions.
This duali y has been gi en pa icula salience h ough he e oca i e no ion o he Silk Roads,
acons uc oo ed in nine een h -cen u y colonial and impe ialis discou ses which shaped
and eimagined he space o Cen al Asia– bo h in i s ancien and mode n con ex s– as de-
cidedly ‘inbe ween’ ( o hese discou ses, see Os e hammel 1987; Rezakhani 2010; Chin
2013; Go shenina 2014; on Reden 2023).
Inbe weenness should no be unde s ood as an objec i e empi ical ac o quali y, bu
a he as asubjec i e gi en o classi ica ion and in e p e a ion; i is he ma e o cul u al
STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2, 33–57
34 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
decision. Acco ding o B. Giessen, as ou lined in his book Zwischenlagen as well as ac oss
se e al sociological w i ings, inbe weenness e e s o he on ologized ansi o y ‘ hi d space’
be ween opposi es in asocially cons uc ed cul u al o de o hings (Giesen 2012; Giesen 2010,
9–17; see also Bhabha 2004, 35–38 on he ‘Thi d Space’ heo y). Acco dingly, inbe ween -places,
people, and objec s a e hose unclassi iable emainde s ha all be ween ca ego ically p e-
supposed s ages, s a es, o bounda ies, because hey ha e been emplaced, by con en ion, ‘on
he pe iphe y o cul u al sys ems o space in which places a e anked ela i e o each o he ’
(Shields 1991, 3). In oking dual no ions o pe iphe ali y and cen ali y, ‘inbe weenness’ holds
a o dances o unde inable hyb idi y and diso de ly di e gence, allowing o in e p e a ions,
cons uc ions, and a ionaliza ions o cul u e, people, and ma e ial cul u e as ambiguous and
inde e mina e, hus adap able o mul iple pe spec i es and a ec a ions.
The asc ibed quali y o inbe weenness and i s a o dances ha e signi ican ami ica ions o
his o ical and a chaeological unde s andings o ma e ial cul u e wi hin se ings and egions
ha ha e been a ibu ed an inbe ween s a us. As Go shenina analysed in he monumen al
book L’in en ion de l’Asie cen ale, inde e minacy su ounding Cen al Asia has long domina ed
pe cep ions and imagina ies o his space, allowing i o be con inually ein en ed. Th ough-
ou his o y, Cen al Asia’sconcep ual ajec o y has been en angled wi h a ious geopoli ical
in e es s ha amed and shaped i s his o y h ough dis inc impe ialis and O ien alis lenses
(no ably om B i ish and Russian pe spec i es) which linked and disconnec ed he egion
om speci ic ci iliza ional pas s and ealms (Go shenina 2014; 2011; Go shenina– Rapin
2021; u he Colo u 2021). Fo he s udy o Hellenis ic Cen al Asia, whe e a chaeological
sou ces p edominan ly shape ou his o ical unde s anding, he a o dances o inbe weenness
hold pa icula signi icance (Hoo 2022, 17–37). Schola ly econs uc ions o Cen al Asian
his o y a e deeply in luenced by acomplex legacy o meaning -making, shaped by cul u al
ideas abou Hellenism, nomadism, and no ions o he No h and Eas , cons uc s laden wi h
ideologies o inbe weenness. Focusing on Bak ia and Pa hia whose his o ies a e mo e
p ominen ly ea u ed in ancien and mode n his o iog aphy han o he Cen al Asian egions,
his pape e lec s on he en anglemen s o pas and p esen pe cep ions o hese egions as
inbe ween and hei impac on knowledge p oduc ion in he s udy o Hellenis ic Cen al Asia.
CENTRAL ASIA AS THE FAR NORTH ‑EAST
Ideas o Cen al Asia as ac oss oads and aspace o inbe weenness a e no new; hey exis ed
and ci cula ed long be o e Fe dinand on Rich ho en popula ized he e m ‘Seidens aßen’.
In ancien G eek geog aphies o he wo ld, he lands o Cen al Asia we e si ua ed be ween
he pe cei ed edges o he oikoumene, hough hey we e no a icula ed as dis inc places, bu
as socie al zones occupied by ce ain peoples, adap ed om Achaemenid impe ial ideology
(Rollinge – Degen 2021, 207–213).
1
S e ching om he Caspian Sea eas wa ds o he Hindu
Kush moun ains, ancien Cen al Asia o e lapped wi h pa s o he no he n edge o he wo ld,
inhabi ed by Sky hians, and he eas e n edge o he wo ld, inhabi ed by Indians (e.g. Hd . iii,
1 In Achaemenid impe ial ideology, he king p esen ed himsel as ‘ he king o peoples’; acco ding o
Lecoq 1997, 137 his was unp eceden ed in Mesopo amian oyal i ula u e and he e o e dis inc ly
I anian. The men ion o di e se and dis an peoples se ed o e oke he massi e (‘wo ld -wide’)
ex en o he empi e (Bichle – Rollinge 2017; bu c . Lecoq 1997, 137–38), as we ead in Da eios’
ilingual insc ip ion on moun Bisi un: ‘Iam Da eios, he g ea king, king o kings, king in Pe sia,
king o peoples… hese a e he people who obey me:…’ (DB § 1, 6; ansl. Kuh 2007).
35MILINDA HOO
98–116; Xen. Cy . iii, 6.21; Ps.-Scymn. 170–182; S .i, 1.13, 2.28, ii, 1.22; see Fig. 1).2 Cap i a ing
geog aphical imagina ions o he amilia me ging wi h he unknown, hese dis an elusi e
inges o he wo ld inspi ed aweal h o na a i e knowledge o ‘ he inbe ween’ ha bo de ed
on eali y. Ra he han an objec i e physical measu e, i mus be kep in mind ha geog aphical
dis ance o he wo ld’sedges was acul u al and he o ical ool o di e en ia e and nego ia e
bounda ies o amilia i y and s angeness, whe he eal o imagined (discussed in Ha og
1988; Romm 1994; Hölsche 2000; c . Sonnabend 2007; Skinne 2012; Dueck 2012, 20–67;
Vlassopoulos 2013).
Fig. 1: Mode n econs uc ion o he G eek concep ion o he wo ld, acco ding o E a os henes, ca.
220 BCE (Ba holomew 1912).
Acco dingly, na a i e ep esen a ions o he lands o Sky hians in he a No h, adap ed om
Achaemenid wo ld concep ions, and ound in he wo ks o widely - ead au ho s such as He o-
do os, Hippok a es, Xenophon, A is o le, S abo, Pliny, and he Alexande his o ians, depic ed
ape pe ually cold, inhospi able en i onmen , inhabi ed by aspeci ic ype o ba ba ian: nomads.
Associa ed wi h ‘ he uppe pa o Asia’ (Hd . i , 1; also S .xi, 1.1–4; see Fig. 1), hese no he n
nomads wi h ‘Sky hian’ li es yles became known as wande ing, ho se - iding, and wa like ibes
who ca ied hei homes in wagons, li ed in en s, excelled in moun ed a che y, and p ac iced
die s based on ho se mea and ma e milk (Hd . i , 46; Hippoc . Ae . 18; A is . Pol. 1324b, 11–19;
Ps.-Scymn. 841–859; S . ii, 3.7, 3.17–18, xi, 8.2–6; Plin. HN i, 50–51; Jus . Epi . ii, 2.3–8; A . In.
7.2–3)– desc ip ions ha pa ly esona e wi h he spec um o pas o alis li es yles ac oss he
cen al Eu asian s eppes (Khazano 1983, 15–84, 119–198; Ba ield 1993, 131–168; F ache i
2012; c . Spengle e al. 2021). Al hough a iabili y and g ada ions in he ex en o nomadism
in hese bo de lands we e acknowledged (Hd . i , 17–18 men ions a ious a ming Sky hians),
2 The o he ex emi ies o he oikoumene (di ided in o h ee con inen s: Eu ope, Asia, and Libya, la e
known as A ica) we e inhabi ed by Kel s in he a wes and E hiopians in he a sou h.
36 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
he No h emained concep ually associa ed wi h anomadic li es yle ha was conside ed ba -
ba ian in acul u al and mo al sense, con as ing highe , seden a y ci iliza ions.3
Simila conside a ions apply o na a i e ep esen a ions o he eas e n pa o Asia. The
close one app oached he edge o he oikoumene, he mo e ma ellous he con inen o Asia
became in geog aphical imagina ions. Asia’slands and cul u es we e a iously cha ac e ized
as au oc a ic, luxu ious, decaden , e ile, eminine, and idle (e.g. Xen. Cy . iii, 8; Aesch.
Pe s. 41–58, 584–597; Diod. Sic. ii, 21, 23), encompassing amilia O ien alis s e eo ypes o he
eas e n O he (especially in ela ion o he Pe sian O he in he i h cen u y BCE: Hall 1989;
B ian 2002; see Said 2003, 1–110 o O ien alism). A he u hes , eas e nmos limi o he
wo ld, he lands o Indians we e belie ed o be home o ex emely jus people (Hd . iii, 100;
Pho . Bibl. lxxii, 45b), biza e olk such as dog -headed men and long -bea ded ‘pygmies’ (Pho .
Bibl. lxxii, 46ab, 47a; S .x , 1.57; Philos . VA i, 1.2), unusually la ge lo a and auna (Pho .
Bibl. lxxii, 45b–46a; Pompon. iii.62; Philos . VA iii, 6–8), and as iches o gold, couched in
ales o gold -digging dese an s o moun ain g i ins (Hd . iii, 102–105; Ael. NA i , 27; c . Pho .
Bibl. lxxii, 46b; Philos . VA iii, 48, i, 1.2).4 Such s o ies ed in o he li e a y opos o noble
sa ages: i uous peoples ha inhabi ed he ex emi ies o he wo ld, whose simple li es yles
we e un ain ed by ci iliza ion as hey we e gi ed by na u e wi h apa adisal abundance and
eady access o weal h, sus enance, and esou ces (e.g. Hd . iii, 106; Diod. Sic. ii, 16.3–4, ii, 35–36,
Jus . Epi . ii, 2.9–15; u he discussed in Romm 1989; Schneide 2015; Dueck 2015; S oneman
2019, 99–286; and mos ecen ly Colo u 2024).5
Ancien Cen al Asia, hen, was si ua ed in be ween he wo ld’s a hes limi s in he No h
and he Eas . Ia gue ha his mac o egion o ‘ he No h -Eas ’ can be conside ed as ame a-
geog aphical cons uc o limi opic inbe weenness.6 This liminal zone was imagined o begin
a he Caspian Ga es: an elusi e moun ain pass sou h o he Caspian Sea leading eas wa ds
o he lands o Pa hia, A ia, Ma giana, Bak ia, Sogdia, Cho asmia, and he Sky hian lands
a ound and no h o he Sy Da ya ha we e associa ed wi h nomadic li es yles (S .ii, 1.22,
xi, 8.1–9.1; Plin. HN i, 44–45; A . Anab. iii, 20; Joseph. BJ ii, 244–246; Amm. Ma c. xxiii, 6.13;
c . Pompon. iii, 38).7 Geog aphical imagina ions o hese lands be ween he a No h and he
3 Fo Sky hians as pa adigma ic nomads, see Weiss 2012; 2015; o pas o al nomads as he ul ima e
ba ba ian, see Shaw 1983; o ancien na a i e knowledge abou nomads in gene al, Scha e
2002; Rücke 2015. Va iabili y in subsis ence s a egies o mobile pas o alis s in he ancien Eu -
asian s eppes, in eg a ing a ious a ming and he ding p ac ices, has now been demons a ed
widely by scien i ic s udies (mos ly ocusing on B onze Age Eu asia), see e.g. F ache i 2012;
Spengle e al. 2014.
4 Gold -gua ding g i ins we e no limi ed o he (imagina i e) geog aphy o India bu seem o ha e
been an e hnog aphic opos connec ed o he limi s o he ea h. Elsewhe e, we hea abou hese
an as ical c ea u es in ela ion o he A imaspians, awond ous one -eyed olk ela ed o he Sky h-
ians in he a No h (Hd . i , 13, 27; Paus. i, 24.6). Flo a and auna o he edges o he oikoumene
we e o en (con) used wi h one ano he , especially s o ies abou India and E hiopia ( he a eas
and he a sou h) (see he e e ences in he ex ). No e e yone accep ed an as ic s o ies abou
he wo ld’sedges o be ue; scep icism abou hei e aci y was al eady oiced in an iqui y, e.g.
S .ii, 1.9; see also A . Pe ipl. M. Eux. 27.
5 As He odo os pu i : ‘The ai es blessings ha e been g an ed o he mos dis an na ions o he wo ld’
(Αἱ δ᾿ἐσχατιαί κως τῆς οἰκεομένης τὰ κάλλιστα ἔλαχον; Hd . iii, 106, ansl. Loeb: A.D. Godley).
6 Tha No h -Eas e n lands can be conside ed as an analy ically cohesi e geog aphical uni is in-
c easingly ecognized and ea ed as such; see Vogelsang 1992; Rapin 2021; S a k 2023.
7 The ‘Caspian Sea’ was also known as he ‘Hy kanian Sea’ (Plu . Vi . Alex. 44.2; Cu . i, 4.18). Se e al
moun ain passes we e con ende s o he oponym ‘Caspian Ga es’ which caused con usion among
ancien au ho s (see, no ably, Plin. HN. i, 12, 15, 17). The ‘Caspian Ga es’ leading o Cen al Asia
37MILINDA HOO
a Eas we e en angled wi h accoun s o , on he one hand, he dis an un uly no heas e n
egions o he Achaemenid empi e (e.g. DB 35–39; Hd . ix, 113.1–2; discussed in Wu 2017; Bala -
i 2021, 146–150), and on he o he , Alexande he G ea ’sa duous campaigns in o Bak ia and
Sogdiana in pu sui o Bessos, a e he mu de o Da eios III in 330 BCE (discussed in Hol
1989; Heckel 2020, 171–200).
Acco ding o na a i e adi ions, i was in he No h -Eas whe e he legenda y Assy ian
king Ninus (un)success ully campaigned (Diod. Sic. ii, 6; acco ding o he ale, i was Semi -
amis, awoman, who secu ed ic o y o him) and whe e he amous empi e - ounde Ky os
(Cy us) me a iolen end a he hands o aSky hian olk (Hd . i, 204–214; Pho . Bibl. lxxii,
3–8; Be os. Bab. iii, 5.1; Diod. Sic. ii, 44; Jus . Epi . i, 8, ii, 3.3; c . Xen. Cy . iii, 7; S .xi, 8.5;
Amm. Ma c. xxiii, 6.7).8 Mo eo e , i was upon en e ing he No h -Eas a Hy kania -Pa hia,
ha Alexande he G ea began o ‘O ien alize’, losing sel -con ol and mode a ion, adop ing
os en a ious I anian a i e and cus oms, and demanding p os a ion o his men, beha ing as
i he we e di ine (Diod. Sic. x ii, 77.4–7; Jus . Epi . xii, 3.8–12; Cu . i, 6.1–12; Plu . Vi . Alex.
45.1–2; A . Anab. i , 9.9; see u he B osius 2003; Olb ych 2014; Heckel 2020, 201–220).9
In li e a y discou se, bo h Ky os and Alexande ‘ ound hei limi in his egion o he wo ld’
(Plin. HN i, 49), and bo h ma ked he on ie s o hei empi e wi h he ounda ion o aname-
-ci y in Sogdiana, espec i ely Ky opolis (Cy escha a) and Alexand ia Escha e– ‘ he a hes ’
o ci ies (S .xi, 11.4; Jus . Epi . xii, 5.12; Cu . i, 6.13, 6.20; Isid. 18; A . Anab. i , 1; App. Sy .
57.298; see also Bichle – Rollinge 2017; Rollinge – Degen 2021).10 The No h -Eas was
hus geog aphically imagined as aci iliza ional bo de zone o ansg essi e limi opic inbe-
weenness, edging and me ging in o he a No h and he a Eas .
As cen u ies passed by, he dis an inges o Sky hia, India, and he lands o Cen al Asia
in be ween became mo e eal and physical as knowledge o he wo ld inc eased o e ime. The
campaigns o Alexande he G ea and he eas e n anabases o Seleukid kings o hese eaches
o he wo ld no only igge ed inc easing connec i i y h ough new o enewed mili a y
and diploma ic con ac s wi h local eli es and kings, such as wi h Oxya es (S .xi, 11.4; Cu .
iii, 4.21–30) and Eu hydemos (Polyb. x, 49; discussion in S oo man 2021; 2023).11 They also
inc eased geog aphical knowledge h ough explo a i e expedi ions, such as by A is oboulos
unde Alexande (S .xi, 7.3, 11.5), o Demodamas and Pa okles unde Seleukid manda e ( esp.
Plin. HN i, 18.49; S .ii, 1.9, 1.17; see u he Kosmin 2014, 59–76; Vissche 2020, 16–70). By he
inal cen u ies BCE, many o he Cen al Asian lands we e a e sed and became be e known
we e gene ally si ua ed in Hy kania (S .ii, 1.22), bu o he ‘Caspian Ga es’ we e loca ed in g ea e
A menia in he Caucasus, on he o he side o he Caspian Sea.
8 Ky os’ dea h was a iously a ibu ed o he Massage ai (He odo os), he Saka (K esias), he Dahai
(Be ossos), o gene ally he Sky hians (Diodo os; Pompeius T ogus ia Jus in). The signi icance o
Ky os in Cen al Asia as adis an pe iphe y o he wo ld ecei ed discussion in Bichle – Rollinge
2017. Fo he ole o Semi amis in G eek in e p e a ions o Nea Eas e n his o y, see S onk 2016.
9 These p ac ices we e conside ed o be ‘co up ed by luxu y and o eign cus oms’ (haec luxu e
pe eg inis mo ibus in ec a, Cu . i, 6.9). In A ian’saccoun , Alexande ’s‘O ien alizing’ beha iou
occu s la e , i.e. deepe in o Cen al Asia (in Bak ia o Sogdiana).
10 Quo e in Plin. HN i, 49: ‘ inis omnium eo um [Cy us e Alexande e Sami amus] duc us ab illa
pa e e a um’. These name -ci ies– o mo e likely mili a y o esses– may ha e been si ua ed
in he same loca ion; a e sieging he ci y (A . Anab. i , 3.1–4), Alexande possibly enamed and
e ounded Ky opolis as Alexand ia Escha a (Ael. NA x i, 3; bu c . S .xi, 11.4).
11 Mo e eas e ly diploma ic con ac s we e made wi h he Indian kings Chand agup a (by Seleukos I:
Jus . Epi . x , 4.20), Bindusa a (by An iochos I: A h. xi .652 –653a), and Sophagasenos (by An iochos
III: Polyb. xi, 34.11–12). Megas henes, he Seleukid ambassado a Chand agup a’scou (S .x , 1.36),
also added o geog aphical knowledge abou he a eaches o he wo ld (see esp. A . In. passim).

38 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
as global in e connec i i y inc eased and ansimpe ial geog aphical in o ma ion began o
pe mea e common knowledge (see S .i, 2.1; u he Geh ke 2015; Rolle 2018 on Hellenis ic
geog aphy).12 Ye , mnemonic ideas o he a No h as an O he wo ld o wa like nomads and
he a Eas as a ealm o excessi e weal h and wond ous abundance emained in luen ial in
knowledge s uc u es and geog aphical imagina ies o he No h -Eas as alimi opic zone
o inbe weenness. These ideas c ea ed en angled pas s and p esen s in he his o iog aphy o
Cen al Asia, especially in he cases o Pa hia and Bak ia, whose his o ies a e in e wined
wi h cul u al associa ions o he a No h and he a Eas combined.
BAKTRIANS AS SELF, PARTHIANS AS OTHER?
To illumina e he en anglemen o pas s and p esen s and he ole o No h -Eas e n inbe-
weenness, le us u n o he his o iog aphy o Bak ia and Pa hia in he Hellenis ic pe iod.
Ancien w i en sou ces abou he his o y o hese pos -sa apal kingdoms a e no o iously
sca ce and o limi ed eliabili y. Schola s depend on ahand ul o documen a y sou ces and
sca e ed passages in la e li e a y wo ks, composed in G eek o La in om ou side wes e n
pe spec i es mos ly o he Common E a (Wiesehö e 1998; Hackl– Jacobs– Webe 2010;
Wiesehö e – Mülle 2017; Hol 1999, 178–184; Colo u 2009, 65–97; Mai s 2021a), lea ing
much o he a chaeological e idence o he Hellenis ic pe iod open o a ying his o ical
in e p e a ions– an in e p e i e g ey zone. We a e le wi h spa ially and empo ally dis an
memo ies in li e a y na a i es. Ye hese memo ies p o ide c i ical insigh s o unde -
s anding how he inbe weenness o he Bak ians and Pa hians was a icula ed and shaped
h ough he asc ip ion o his o ical meaning and iden i y in ancien his o iog aphy, impac ing
in e p e a ions o hei ma e ial cul u e in mode n schola ship.
Th ee ancien wo ks ha in o m us abou he Bak ians and Pa hians a e ins uc i e he e,
Polybios, S abo, and Jus in’sepi ome o Pompeius T ogus, all ypically da ed la e han he
e en s hey desc ibed. Idiscuss hem he e in he ch onological o de o he e en s, a he
han he o de o he wo ks in which he ele an ex passages appea . The i s is ound
in S abo’sGeog aphy, auni e sal wo k w i en du ing he eign o Tibe ius, somewhe e
be ween 18 and 24 CE (Engels 1999, 36–40; Dueck 2000, 147–151). The passage in ques ion,
d awn om he now -los wo k o Apollodo os o A emi a (FG His 779; D ij e s 1998, 281),13
b ie ly men ions he sa apal e ol s in Cen al Asia agains he Seleukid kings (who we e
12 S abo is mos illumina i e he e: ‘Indeed, he sp ead o he empi es o he Romans and o he Pa -
hians has p esen ed o geog aphe s o oday aconside able addi ion o ou empi ical knowledge o
geog aphy, jus as did he campaign o Alexande o geog aphe s o ea lie imes, as E a os henes
poin s ou . Fo Alexande opened up o us geog aphe s ag ea pa o Asia and all he no he n
pa o Eu ope as a as he Is e Ri e ; he Romans ha e made known all he wes e n pa o Eu ope
as a as he Ri e Albis (which di ides Ge many in o wo pa s), and he egions beyond he Is e
as a as he Ty as Ri e ; and Mi h ida es, su named Eupa o , and his gene als ha e made known
he egions beyond he Ty as as a as Lake Maeo is and he line o coas ha ends a Colchis; and,
again, he Pa hians ha e inc eased ou knowledge in ega d o Hy cania and Bac iana, and in
ega d o he Scy hians who li e no h o Hy cania and Bac iana, all o which coun ies we e bu
impe ec ly known o he ea lie geog aphe s’ (op. ci ., ansl. Loeb: H.L. Jones).
13 Apollodo os o A emi a– aG aeco -Pa hian ci y eas o he Tig is– is conside ed o ha e au ho ed
one o he, i no he i s Pa hian his o ies; his Pa hika was p obably w i en in he i s decades
o he i s cen u y BCE (Nikono o 1998, 107–111; Mülle 2017, 59–64; u he discussion on
Apollodo os in Colo u 2009 65–97; D’Hau cou 2010; Engels 2017).
39MILINDA HOO
p eoccupied wi h dynas ic and in e impe ial con lic s in Wes Asia) in he mid - hi d cen u y
BCE, p e acing he ise o he A sakids:
‘Those who had been en us ed wi h hei go e nmen i s caused he e ol o Bac iana and
o all he coun y nea i , Imean Eu hydemus14 and his ollowe s; and hen A saces, aScy h-
ian, wi h some o he Dahae (Imean he Apa nians, as hey we e called, nomads who li ed
along he Ochus), in aded Pa hia and conque ed i . Now a he ou se A saces was weak,
being con inually a wa wi h hose who had been dep i ed by him o hei e i o y, bo h
he himsel and his successo s, bu la e hey g ew so s ong, always aking he neighbou ing
e i o y, h ough successes in wa a e, ha inally hey es ablished hemsel es as lo ds o
he whole o he coun y inside he Euph a es. And hey also ook apa o Bac iana, ha ing
o ced he Scy hians, and s ill ea lie Euc a ides and his ollowe s, o yield o hem; and a
he p esen ime hey ule o e so much land and so many ibes ha in he size o hei
empi e hey ha e become, in away, i als o he Romans. The cause o his is hei mode o
li e, and also hei cus oms (ὁ βίος αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἔθη), which con ain much ha is ba ba ian
and Scy hian in cha ac e (τὰ ἔχοντα πολὺ μὲν τὸ βάρβαρον καὶ τὸ Σκυθικόν), hough mo e
ha is conduci e o hegemony and success in wa .’ (S .xi, 9.2, ansl. Loeb: H.L. Jones)
Al hough he Bak ians we e he i s o e ol om he Seleukids, o S abo, he ise o
he A sakid empi e in Pa hia is mo e in e es ing,15 and i is he e whe e we see dis inc en-
gagemen wi h he geog aphical imagina ies o he a No h. P io o his passage, S abo
desc ibed he land o he Pa hians as desola e and ugged, a‘ hickly wooded, moun ainous,
and po e y -s icken’ place (δασεῖα καὶ ὀρεινή ἐστι καὶ ἄπορος, S .xi, 9.1), whe e one would
no wan o linge long. In connec ing na u al habi a wi h he le el o human ci iliza ion,
S abo’sgeog aphy o Pa hia is a ypical imagina ion o ba ba ic lands (D ij e s 1998,
282–283), which o eshadows he s o y o A sakes quo ed abo e. The o igins o A sakes we e
no o iously elusi e, bu he e he is p esen ed as aSky hian, and wi h him he Pa ni ibe ha
in aded Pa hia om he Eu asian s eppes.
16
As poin ed ou by p e ious schola ship, al hough
S abo omi s explici men ion o nomadic oo s, he engages wi h he ypical imagina ion o
he bellige en no he n nomad, ba ba ian o emos , and dis inc om he Romans by hei
Sky hian cus oms and s yle (D ij e s 1998, 285–286; discussed as aRoman he o ical opos
in Hause 2005, 170–184; c . Le ouge -Cohen 2009).
Signi ican o his pape is ha ea lie in book xi, S abo also associa ed he Bak ians o
he pas wi h Sky hian li es yles, desc ibing hei cus oms as ba ba ian– simila o hose o
nomads (οὐ πολὺ διέφερον τοῖς βίοις καὶ τοῖς ἤθεσι τῶν νομάδων)– such as abandoning he sick
14 S abo e oneously a ibu es he ‘Bak ian e ol ’ o Eu hydemos a he han Diodo os I; c . Jus .
Epi . lxi, 4.5, suppo ed by numisma ic e idence (Bopea achchi 1991, 41–46, pl. 1–2). Fu he dis-
cussion in Hol 1999, 48–66; K i 2001; Bo deaux 2018.
15 ‘Mo e in e es ing’ in ela ion o he Bak ians; he Pa hian (A sakid) empi e was, o cou se, no o
p ima y in e es o S abo, auni e salis Augus an w i e aiming o explain he ise o Rome’sim‑
pe ium sine ine; see discussion in Engels 2017, 31–34.
16 A sakes’ elusi e o igins a e men ioned again in ala e passage: ‘some say ha A saces de i es his
o igin om he Sky hians, whe eas o he s say ha he was aBac ian, and ha when in ligh om
he enla ged powe o Diodo os and his ollowe s he caused Pa hia o e ol ’ (S .xi, 9.3, ansl.
Loeb: H.L. Jones). S abo’snow los his o ical wo k His o ika hypomnema a would ha e con ained
a ull book dedica ed o cus oms o he Pa hians (men ioned in S .xi, 9.3). On S abo’ssou ces
on Pa hia and he Pa hians, see D ij e s 1998, 290–292). On he li e a y signi icance o A sakes’
ounda ion s o y as amig a ing e ugee om Bak ia, see Hause 2005, 175; also discussed below.
40 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
and elde ly as p ey o wild dogs (S .xi, 11.3; commen a y in Hol 1999, 122–123; see u he
Mai s 2007). Acco ding o S abo, i was Alexande he G ea who pu an end o hese ancien
in ole able cus oms (S .xi, 11.3; see also Plu . Mo . De Alex. o . 328C).17 As he s o y is old,
Bak ia unde G eek ule la e g ew powe ul as hey ( he pos -Seleukid, G aeco -Bak ian
kings) we e able o mas e he e ile land, adminis e hei kingdom in sa apies, and expand
hei in luence o India, ‘subduing mo e peoples han Alexande ’ (πλείω ἔθνη κατεστρέψαντο
ἢ Ἀλέξανδρος, S .xi, 11.2).18 Implied in his na a i e is ha , due o hei subjec ion o G eek
ule, he Bak ians– once esembling he Sky hians– ou g ew hei p imi i e ba ba ism and
g adually became mo e ci ilized h ough he ag icul u al and impe ial cul i a ion o hei
lands, as hei (G eek) kings conque ed ibes and ounded ci ies. These p ac ices e ec i ely
made Bak ia ci ilized land and posi ioned i s ule s on pa wi h Alexande he G ea as
sp eade s o (seden a y) ci iliza ion. The Bak ians, he e o e, became eposi ioned wi hin
he ealm o ci iliza ion h ough hei subjec ion o G eek kings (whose iden i ies and eli e
li es yles we e likely no con ined o ‘being G eek’ bu we e mul i ace ed, shaped by di e se
mig a o y backg ounds and p ocesses o localiza ion o e ime: Na ain 2008; Bu s ein 2012).
We can obse e asigni ican con as wi h he Pa hians, whom S abo po ays as ha ing
become he i als o he Romans, no because hey became ci ilized and mas e ul like he
(G aeco-)Bak ians, bu because o hei endu ing Sky hian, agg essi e na u e which p o ed
a o able in wa a e. S abo’sna a i e hus highligh s acul u al dis inc ion be ween he o -
me ly nomadic, now ci ilized Bak ians, and he s ill -Sky hian ba ba ic Pa hians, implying
ha Bak ia was capable o de eloping in o ci ilized land, while Pa hia– bo h he land and
i s people– emained s agnan , ancho ed in he No h -Eas .
The dis inc ion be ween he Bak ians as ci ilized and he Pa hians as ba ba ian, o mo e
speci ically, Sky hian– ela ed o wa like, nomadic olk a he no he n edges o he oikou‑
mene– also occu s in Jus in’sepi ome o he monumen al His o iae Philippae o Pompeius T o-
gus, awidely - ead con empo a y o S abo wi h Gallic oo s who p obably was ac i e du ing
he Augus an pe iod ( an Wicke oo C ommelin 1998, 260–261; Mülle 2017, 241 n. 1;
Bo gna 2019, 31–33).19 T ogus, oo, d ew on Apollodo os’ Pa hika, possibly supplemen ed by
ecen knowledge abou he A sakids ob ained om con empo a y accoun s o he ‘Pa hian’
campaigns by C assus and An onius ( an Wicke oo C ommelin 1998, 272).
20
Jus in himsel
composed his epi ome o T ogus’ his o y somewhe e be ween he second and he la e ou h
cen u y CE, cen u ies la e bu pe haps s ill du ing a ime when he A sakids domina ed he
eas e n oikoumene ( he da e is con en ious: Ya dley– Heckel 1997, 10–13; Ya dley 2003, 5;
c . Syme 1988, 361–63; and now Ho mann 2018, 23–29; Bo gna 2019, 107–110).
21
Simila o
17 Agene a ion la e han S abo, Plu a ch (op. ci .) simila ly men ions ha i was Alexande who
educa ed he Sky hians o bu y hei dead, ins ead o de ou ing hem.
18 Τοσοῦτον δὲ ἴσχυσαν οἱ ἀποστήσαντες Ἕλληνες αὐτὴν διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν τῆς χώρας, ὥστε τῆς τε Ἀριανῆς
ἐπεκράτουν καὶ τῶν Ἰνδῶν, ὥς φησιν Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Ἀρτεμιτηνός, καὶ πλείω ἔθνη κατεστρέψαντο ἢ
Ἀλέξανδρος: ‘The G eeks who caused Bac ia o e ol g ew so powe ul on accoun o he e ili y o
he coun y ha hey became mas e s, no only o A iana, bu also o India, as Apollodo us o A emi a
says: and mo e ibes we e subdued by hem han by Alexande ’ (S .xi, 11.1, ansl. Loeb: H.L. Jones).
19 Tha T ogus was widely ead is e lec ed in he His o ia Augus a, which men ions T ogus alongside
h ee o he g ea La in his o ians (Li y, Sallus , Taci us): SHA Au el. 2.1., SHA P ob. 2.7.
20 These campaigns did no ake place in Cen al Asia, bu in he wes e n pa o he A sakid empi e,
in uppe Mesopo amia (mod. sou h Tu key) and Media A opa ene (mod. Aze baijan). Fo Roman
au ho s, ‘Pa hia’ and ‘Pa hian campaigns’ e e ed o campaigns agains he A sakid empi e, bu
no necessa ily in Pa hia; u he e lec ions in Colo u 2009, 18–19, 168.
21 Hence o h ‘Jus in’ a he han ‘Jus in -T ogus’.
41MILINDA HOO
S abo, Jus in is no deeply in e es ed in he Bak ians. Though men ioning wice ea lie ha
he ounde s o bo h he Pa hian and Bak ian empi es we e Sky hians (Jus . Epi . ii.1.3, 3.6),
his Cen al Asian his o y in book xli is ully dedica ed o he A sakids who, du ing his own
li e ime– as well as du ing T ogus’– emained p esen in he Roman mind as he i al O he :
‘ oday he Pa hians ule he Eas , he wo ld being pa i ioned, as i we e, be ween hem and he
Romans; bu o iginally hey we e exiles om Scy hia’ (Scy ha um exules ue e, Jus . Epi . xli, 1.1;
c . Pho . Bibl. l iii, 17b).22 Sky hians we e ea lie desc ibed as ‘apeople sa age a e ha dships
and wa s’ wi h ‘eno mous physical s eng h’, who ‘hanke a e no hing hey would ea o
lose, and when ic o ious hey wan no hing bu glo y’ (Jus . Epi . ii, 3.7–8). Thus g ounding
he A sakids in Sky hian o igins, Jus in se s he s age o his na a i e as he in oduces he
Pa hians h ough a amilia e hnog aphic excu sus on he Pa hian language (amix u e o
Sky hian and Median ongues, xli, 2.3), he Pa hian a my (consis ing o mos ly sla es, xli, 2.5,
also xli, 3.9), hei ba le s a egy (cha ging and e ea ing on ho seback, xli, 2.7–9), sexual
cus oms (polygamy o men, xli, 3.1–2), die (mea om he hun , xli, 3.3), ea men o he
dead ( o n by bi ds o dogs, xli, 3.5), eligious pie y ( e y de ou , xli, 3.6–7), and he gene al
cha ac e o he Pa hians (agg essi e, de ious, and insolen , ‘always es less and eady o c e-
a e ouble, ei he a home o ab oad’ xli, 3.8), all o which engages wi h amilia s e eo ypes
o he Sky hian, nomadic ba ba ian. As in S abo’saccoun , Jus in’se hnog aphic dig ession
builds up o he s o y o he ise o A sakes in Cen al Asia in he mid -second cen u y BCE:
‘The e was a ha ime one A saces who, hough o obscu e lineage, was also o p o en
cou age. He, aman used o ali e o obbe y and bandi y (la ociniis e ap o), had hea d ha
Seleucus had been de ea ed by he Gauls in Asia, and now ha ing no ea o he king (solu us
egis me u) he en e ed Pa hia wi h aband o obbe s (cum p aedonum manu), de ea ed hei
go e no And ago as, and a e emo ing him ook o e his people.’ (Jus . Epi . xli, 4.6–8,
ansl. Loeb: J.C. Ya dley)
Once again, we encoun e an o igin s o y o he dynas y’s ounde – ied o obbe s, bandi s,
and ea less agg ession– ha d aws on e hnog aphic opes o p eda o y wa like Sky hi-
ans o emphasize A sakes’ c ude O he ness, en angled wi h he geog aphical imagina ion
o he No h -Eas . Despi e he expansion o he A sakid empi e a beyond Pa hia du ing
bo h T ogus’ and Jus in’s ime, Jus in’sna a i e shows ha he he o ical language o he
nomadic O he o he a No h e ained mnemonic signi icance h ough i s con inued use.
In an impo an pape , S e an Hause a gued ha A sakes’ Sky hian O he ness was aRoman
he o ical de ice and li e a y adap a ion o he Achaemenid ounda ion my h o Ky os he
G ea ising om humble, nomadic o igins o c ea e apowe ul O ien al empi e, ana a i e
ha unc ioned o pa allel he A sakids wi h he adi ional Pe sian ba ba ian enemy in he
Eas (Hause 2005, 170–185; c . Alonso -Núñez 1988, 140, 144). Building on his in e p e a ion,
I u he a gue ha he he o ical ecas ing o he Eas e n enemy as A sakes ( used wi h he
Sky hian O he ) was made possible because o he a o dances o Cen al Asia’slimi opic
inbe weenness, adap able o di e se pe spec i es.
The di e gen a o dance o No h -Eas e n inbe weenness comes in o clea e iew i we
compa e he Pa hian po ayal wi h ha o he Bak ians. No many wo ds a e dedica ed o
he Bak ians in Jus in’sna a i e, bu wo b ie passages a e wo h ci ing he e:
22 Asubs an ial po ion o book 2 o he epi omized Philippic His o y is dedica ed o he Sky hians, in
which Jus in also ela es he o igins o he Amazons o he Sky hians (Jus . Epi . ii, 4).
48 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
iden i y, bu a he o he exp ession o ‘philhellene’ beha iou , which inse s he poli ical
epi he philhellenos on coins o Mi h ida es Iin o acul u al in e p e a ion ( o which Wolski
1984; on poli ical Philhellenism, see Wiesehö e 1996; Dąb owa 1998; 2011; Olb ych 2017).
The e ms Hellenism and Philhellenism bo h pe ain o o ms o G eekness, ye he p e ix ‘phil’
sepa a es i s p oponen s om genuine, au hen ic G eekness, while de ining hem as dis inc ly
non -G eek: only ou side s can exp ess lo e and admi a ion o G eek cul u e (discussion in
Hoo 2022, 219–221). Acco dingly, a Nisa, ma e ial cul u e ypologized as G eek (sculp u al
a , a chi ec u al deco a ions) has been conside ed as dis inc ly non -e hnic beha iou , wi h
he Pa hians (A sakids) emaining de ached om any o m o G eek iden i y. This s ands
in s a k con as o in e p e a ions o G eek cul u e a Ai Khanum which ha e equen ly
cen ed on he ques ion o G eek e hnici y, and whe he o no o explain G eek cul u e as an
exp ession o iden i y. While he adminis a i e language disco e ed a each si e– G eek a
Ai Khanum and Pa hian a Nisa– played adis inc ole in his di e ence, he asymme ical
cul u al in e p e a ions o Hellenism and he ex en o which his is associa ed wi h ques-
ions o e hnici y a e also impac ed by na a i es o Bak ians as Sel and Pa hians as O he .
Had he i o y hy ons a Nisa been disco e ed a Ai Khanum ins ead, we can imagine hem
o be eadily in e p e ed as b illian examples o genuine Hellenism, made by and o G eeks,
ea i ming Bak ia wi hin he ealm o Hellenis ic poli ies (Hoo 2022, 221).
‘HELLENISTIC’ AND ‘PARTHIAN’ TEMPORALITIES
The di e gen a icula ion o No h -Eas e n inbe weenness also un olds in di e en em-
po ali ies acco ded o he Bak ians and he Pa hians. In S abo’sna a i e, he Bak ians
a e imbued wi h dynamism in hei p og ession om Sky hian o igins, ansi ioning in o
he ci ilized wo ld h ough Alexande and he G eek kings who came o ule hem, which
ans o med Bak ia in an ag icul u ally weal hy land amed o i s ‘ housand ci ies’. This
en angles wi h mode n cul u al app oaches in he his o iog aphy o Ai Khanum’sma e ial
cul u e, which has commen ed a iously on i s G eekness, ela ing o placing i wi hin he
ealm o Alexande ’sG eek legacy in he Eas , a he han wi hin he Bak ian con ex . The
Pa hians, on he o he hand, ha e appea ed in ancien li e a y discou se as weak, s agnan ,
and nomadic ou side s, despi e he o ce ul expansion o he A sakid land empi e a beyond
Pa hia. Pa adoxically, in he di e ging in e p e a ions o cul u e a Nisa and Ai Khanum,
dynamic agency is mo e eadily expec ed o he A sakids ( a he han he Bak ians), who
would ha e c ea i ely adap ed G eek cul u e as a isual language o exp ess A sakid ideology.
To inalize he a gumen , u he di e gence on Bak ian and Pa hian empo ali y can
be no ed in he dis inc his o iog aphic usage o ‘Hellenis ic’ in he s udy o Cen al Asia.
While con en ional pe iodiza ion o he Hellenis ic age commences wi h he eign o dea h
o Alexande he G ea while ending wi h he Ba le o Ac ium o he dea h o Cleopa a VII
(336/323–31/30 BCE), he e m ‘Hellenis ic’ ca ies adis inc in e p e i e load in he con ex
o Cen al Asia, complica ing i s applica ion e en o me e ch onological cla i y. ‘Hellenis ic
laye s’ in Bak ian a chaeology usually e e o s a a wi h dis inc i e cul u al ma e ial ha
p eda es he ‘nomadic in asions’ om he no h which esul ed in he ‘ all o Ai Khanum’
a ound 145 BCE. Ye he uphea al a ound 145 BCE was no solely he esul o he ‘coming o
nomads’ bu d i en by a a ie y o in e connec ed ac o s (discussion in Mai s 2014b, 146–176;
Ma inez -Sè e 2018). The line be ween Hellenis ic and non -Hellenis ic (o ‘pos -G eek’) is
he e o e no aneu al empo al ma ke , bu also adis inc cul u al ma ke . Echoing Polybi-
os’ na a i e, Bak ia’sHellenis ic phase is dema ca ed om ape iod o nomadic in asions

49MILINDA HOO
and decline o G eek cul u e, hus cul u ally opposing Hellenism o nomadism. By con as ,
while ‘Hellenis ic Cen al Asia’ has been adop ed as ch onological ma ke , encompassing he
ule o he Seleukid kings in he Uppe Sa apies and he ise and lou ishing o he G aeco-
-Bak ian and Indo -G eek kingdoms, he e m is a ely applied o he egion wes o Bak ia.
E en hough he A sakid kingdom eme ged du ing he same pe iod and i s kings cul u ally
engaged wi h G eek isual language in he inal cen u ies BCE, he e m ‘Hellenis ic Pa hia’
is uncommon and unhea d o . Hellenis ic and Pa hian empo ali ies o Cen al Asia hus
en angle wi h no ions o Bak ians as Sel and Pa hians as O he .
Classi ica ions o space and ime a e no neu al: hey hold powe o ans o m ambiguous
and ansi ional spaces in o meaning ul places, shaped by speci ic in e es s and na a i es.
Con e sely, inbe ween -places, people, and hings a e ambiguous and di icul o desc ibe ex-
ac ly, which he e o e a ac a ious in e p e a ions and a icula ions o meaning. This pape
has d awn a en ion o he a o dance o he ‘No h -Eas ’ as alimi opic zone o inbe weenness
ha in i es di e gen cul u al imagina ions adap able o di e en pe spec i es, bo h in he
pas and in he p esen . We can see his in how Bak ians and Pa hians ha e been cul u ally
posi ioned in ancien li e a y discou se, which en angle wi h he di e en ways in which
‘Hellenism’ a Ai Khanum and a Nisa ha e been analysed and explained. In ancien and mode n
his o iog aphy, a icula ions o No h -Eas e n inbe weenness ha e posi ioned he Bak ians
as pa o he wes e n Sel – cul u ed ac o s wi hin he ealm o seden a y, G aeco -Roman
ci iliza ion– and Pa hians as he eas e n O he , associa ed wi h he o eign ou side , coupled
wi h associa ions o he nomadic a No h as abo de zone o he ci ilized wo ld. Wi hou
he in en ion o diminish he his o ical signi icance o mobile pas o alism o mig a ions o
se le s om he Aegean, Asia Mino , and Wes Asia, his pape emphasized he ideological
esonances o geog aphical imagina ions o he No h -Eas in his o ical and a chaeological
unde s andings o cul u e and iden i y in Cen al Asia, which de eloped in a mo e luid and
in e ac i e ways han he labels ‘Hellenism’ and ‘nomadism’ lead us o belie e. An awa eness
o such pas and p esen en anglemen s emains c ucial o he s udy o Hellenis ic Cen al
Asia, as ade eloping ield o knowledge p oduc ion abou egions o inbe weenness.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alonso -Núñez, J.M. 1988: The Roman Uni e sal His o ian Pompeius T ogus on India, Pa hia, Bac ia and
A menia. Pe sica 13, 125–155.
Aus in, M. 2006: The Hellenis ic Wo ld om Alexande o he Roman Conques . ASelec ion o Ancien Sou ces in
T ansla ion. Camb idge.
Bade , A. 1996: Pa hian Os aca om Nisa. Some His o ical Da a. In: La Pe sia e l’Asia cen ale. Da Alessand o
al X secolo. In e na ional Con e ence, Rome, 9–12 No embe 1994. Rome, 251–276.
Bala i, S. 2021: Yaunā and Sakā. Iden i y Cons uc ions a he Ma gins o he Achaemenid Empi e. S udia
O ien alia Elec onica 9/2, 140–153.
Bang, P.F. 2012: Be ween Aśoka and An iochos. An Essay in Wo ld His o y on Uni e sal Kingship and Cos-
mopoli an Cul u e in he Hellenis ic Ecumene. In: F. Bang– D. Kolodziejczyk (eds.): Uni e sal Empi e.
ACompa a i e App oach o Impe ial Cul u e and Rep esen a ion in Eu asian His o y. Camb idge, 60–75.
Ba ield, T. 1993: The Nomadic Al e na i e. Englewood Cli s.
Ba holomew, J.G. 1912: ALi e a y & His o ical A las o Asia. London.
Benjamin, C. 2014: ‘Bu om This Time Fo h His o y Becomes aConnec ed Whole’. S a e Expansion and
he O igins o Uni e sal His o y. Jou nal o Global His o y 9/3, 357–378.
50 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
Be na d, P.1967: Aï Khanum on he Oxus. AHellenis ic Ci y in Cen al Asia. P oceedings o he B i ish Acad‑
emy 53, 71–95.
Be na d, P.1973: La s a uai e. In: P.Be na d (ed.): Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968. Rappo P éliminai e.
Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum 1. Mémoi es de la Déléga ion a chéologique ançaise en A ghanis an 21. Pa is,
189–193.
Be na d, P.1976: Les adi ions o ien ales dans l’a chi ec u e g éco -bac iennes. Jou nal Asia ique 264, 245–275.
Be na d, P.1978: Campagne de ouilles 1976–1977 à Aï Khanoum (A ghanis an). Comp es endus des séances
de l’Académie des Insc ip ions e Belles ‑Le es 122/2, 421–463.
Be na d, P.1985: Les hy ons de NisaI. Poé esses g ecques. Jou nal des sa an s 1, 25–118.
Be na d, P.1990: L’a chi ec u e eligieuse de l’Asie cen ale à l’époque hellénis ique. In: Ak en des XIII. In‑
e na ionalen Kong esses ü Klassische A chäologie, Be lin, 24.–30. Juli 1988. Mainz, 4–12.
Be na d, P.1994: The G eek Kingdoms o Cen al Asia. In: J. Ha ma a– B.N. Pu i– G.F. E emadi (eds.):
His o y o Ci iliza ions o Cen al AsiaII. The De elopmen o Seden a y and Nomadic Ci iliza ions. 700 B.C.
o A.D. 250. Pa is, 99–129.
Be na d, P.2009: La décou e e e la ouille du si e hellénis ique d’Ai Khanoum en A ghanis an– commen
elles se son ai es. Pa hica 11, 33–56.
Bhabha, H.K. 2004 (1994): The Loca ion o Cul u e. London– New Yo k.
Bianche i, C.– Ca audella, M.R.– Geh ke, H.-J. eds. 2015: B ill’sCompanion o Ancien Geog aphy. Lei-
den– Bos on.
Bichle , R.– Rollinge , R.2017: Uni e sale Wel he scha und die Monumen e an ih en G enzen. Die Idee
unbeg enz e He scha und de en B echung im disku si en Wechselspiel ( om Al en O ien bis zum
Impe ium Romanum). In: R. Rollinge (ed.): Die Sich au die Wel zwischen Os und Wes (750 . Ch .–550 n.
Ch .). Looking a he Wo ld om he Eas and he Wes (750 BCE‑550 CE). Wiesbaden, 1–30.
Boa dman, J. 2015: The G eeks in Asia. London.
Bolla i, A. 2008: Le scul u e in a gilla c uda dipin a. In: In e nizzi– Lippolis eds. 2008, 167–195.
Bopea achchi, O. 1991: Monnaies g éco ‑bac iennes e indo ‑g ecques. Ca alogue aisonné. Pa is.
Bo deaux, O. 2018: Les G ecs en Inde. Poli iques e p a iques moné ai es (IIIe siècle a.C.– Ie siècle p.C.). Numis-
ma ica An iqua 8. Bo deaux.
Bo gna, A. 2019: S o ie Filippiche. Flo ilegio da Pompeo T ogo. San a cangelo di Romagna.
B ian , P.2002: His o y and Ideology. The G eeks and ‘Pe sian Decadence’. In: T. Ha ison (ed.): G eeks and
Ba ba ians. Edinbu gh, 193–210.
B osius, M. 2003: Alexande and he Pe sians. In: J. Roisman (ed.): B ill’sCompanion o Alexande he G ea .
Leiden– Bos on, 169–193.
B uno, J. 2021: Pa hia. In: Mai s ed. 2021b, 56–77.
Bu s ein, S.M. 2008: G eek Iden i y in he Hellenis ic Pe iod. In: K. Zacha ia (ed.): Hellenisms. Cul u e,
Iden i y, and E hnici y om An iqui y o Mode ni y. Hampshi e– Bu ling on, 37–58.
Bu s ein, S.M. 2012: Whence he Women? The O igin o he Bac ian G eeks. Ancien Wes & Eas 11, 97–104.
Canepa, M.P.2018: The I anian Expanse. T ans o ming Royal Iden i y h ough A chi ec u e, Landscape, and he
Buil En i onmen , 550 BCE–642 CE. Be keley– Los Angeles.
Chin, T. 2013: The In en ion o he Silk Road, 1877. C i ical Inqui y 40/1, 194–219.
Ch ubasik, B. 2016: Kings and Usu pe s in he Seleukid Empi e. The Men Who Would Be King. Ox o d.
Cohen, G.M. 2013: The Hellenis ic Se lemen s in he Eas om A menia and Mesopo amia o Bac ia and India.
Be keley.
Colo u, O. 2009: Da Alessand o aMenand o. Il egno g eco di Ba iana. Pisa– Rome.
Colo u, O. 2021: The Ques o Bac ia. Schola ship on he G aeco -Bac ian Kingdom om I s O igins o he
End o Colonialism. In: Mai s ed. 2021b, 127–141.
Colo u, O. 2024: Indians in he G aeco -Roman Wo ld. AS e eo ype o O he ness. In: B. Fo sén– A. Lampinen
(eds.): O ien al Mi ages. S e eo ypes and Iden i y C ea ion in he Ancien Wo ld. S u ga , 163–195.
51MILINDA HOO
Dąb owa, E. 1998: Philhellên. Mi h ida e Ie e les G ecs. Elec um 2, 35–44.
Dąb owa, E. 2011: G eeks unde he A sacid Rule (2
nd
cen u y BC). In: E. Dąb owa (ed.): S udia G aeco ‑Pa hica.
Poli ical and Cul u al Rela ions be ween G eeks and Pa hians. Wiesbaden, 84–87.
Da yaee, T.– Rollinge , R.– Canepa, M.P.eds. 2023: I an and he T ans o ma ion o Ancien Nea Eas e n
His o y. The Seleucids (ca. 312–150 BCE). P oceedings o he Thi d Pay a i Con e ence on Ancien I anian
His o y, UC I ine, Feb ua y 24 h–25 h, 2020. Classica e O ien alia 31. Wiesbaden.
D’Hau cou , A. 2010: Apollodo os o A emi a (779). In: I. Wo hing on (ed.): B ill’sNew Jacoby 3. Jacoby
Online. Leiden– Bos on.
Diakono , I.M.– Li shi s, V.A. 2001: Pa hian Economic Documen s om Nisa. Co pus Insc ip ionum I anica‑
umII. Insc ip ions o he Seleucid and Pa hian Pe iods o Eas e n I an and Cen al Asia II: Pa hian. London.
Downey, S.B. 1986: A in I anIV. Pa hian A . Encyclopædia I anica 2/6, 580–585.
D ij e s, J.W. 1998: S abo on Pa hia and he Pa hians. In: Wiesehö e ed. 1998, 279–293.
Dueck, D. 2000: S abo o Amasia. AG eek Man o Le e s in Augus an Rome. London– New Yo k.
Dueck, D. 2012: Geog aphy in Classical An iqui y. Wi h aChap e by Kai B ode sen. Camb idge.
Dueck, D. 2015: Modelling E hnici y. Pa e ns o E hnic E alua ion in he Indian Reco ds o Alexande ’sCom-
panions and Megas henes. In: R.F. Kennedy– M. Jones -Lewis (eds.): The Rou ledge Handbook o Iden i y
and he En i onmen in he Classical and Medie al Wo lds. London– New Yo k, 341–352.
Engels, D. 2014: An iochosIII. de G oße und sein Reich. Übe legungen zu ‘Feudalisie ung’ de seleukidis-
chen Pe iphe ie. In: F. Ho mann– K.S. Schmid (eds.): O ien und Okziden in hellenis ische Zei . Bei äge
zu Tagung O ien und Okziden – An agonismus ode Kons uk ? Mach s uk u en, Ideologien und
Kul u ans e in hellenis ische Zei . Wü zbu g 10.–13. Ap il 2008. Va e s e en, 31–76.
Engels, J. 1999: Augus eische Oikumenegeog aphie und Uni e salhis o ie im We k S abons on Amaseia. S u ga .
Engels, J. 2017: S abon aus Amaseia und Apollodo os aus A emi a. In: Wiesehö e – Mülle eds. 2017, 29–45.
E ing on, E.– C ibb, J. eds. 1992: The C oss oads o Asia. T ans o ma ion in Image and Symbol in he A o
Ancien A ghanis an and Pakis an. Camb idge.
F ache i, M.D. 2012: Mul i egional Eme gence o Mobile Pas o alism and Non -Uni o m Complexi y ac oss
Eu asia. Cu en An h opology 53/1, 2–38.
F anc o e al. 2014 = F anc o , H.P.– G ene , F.– Lyonne , B.– Ma inez -Sè e, L.: Il y a50 ans… La décou‑
e e d’Aï Khanoum, 1964–1978, Fouilles de la Déléga ion a chéologique ançaise en A ghanis an. Pa is.
Geh ke, H.-J. 2001: My h, His o y, and Collec i e Iden i y. Uses o he Pas in Ancien G eece and Beyond.
In: N. Lu aghi (ed.): The His o ian’sC a in he Age o He odo us. Ox o d, 286–313.
Geh ke, H.-J. 2015: The ‘ e olu ion’ o Alexande he G ea . Old and New in he Wo ld’sView. In: Bianche -
i– Ca audella– Geh ke eds. 2015, 78–97.
Giesen, B. 2010: Zwischenlagen. Das Auße o den liche als G und de sozialen Wi klichkei . Weile swis .
Giesen, B. 2012: Inbe weenness and Ambi alence. In: J.C. Alexande – R.N. Jacobs– P.Smi h (eds.): The Ox o d
Handbook o Cul u al Sociology. Ox o d, 788–804.
Go shenina, S. 2011: Le concep de ‘cen ali é’ appliqué à l’Asie cen ale. Enjeux géopoli iques usses du
XIXe–débu du XXe siècle en e Occiden e Asie. Cahie s de l’ILSL 29, 97–128.
Go shenina, S. 2014: L’in en ion de l’Asie cen ale. His oi e du concep de la Ta a ie à l’Eu asie. Genè e.
Go shenina, S.– Rapin, C. 2021: Hellenism wi h o wi hou Alexande he G ea . Russian, So ie and Cen al
Asian App oaches. In: Mai s ed. 2021b, 171–214.
G een, P.1990: Alexande o Ac ium. The His o ical E olu ion o he Hellenis ic Age. Be keley.
G uen, E.S. 2010: Re hinking he O he in An iqui y. P ince on.
Hackl, U.– Jacobs, B.– Webe , D. eds. 2010: Quellen zu Geschich e des Pa he eiches. Tex sammlung mi
Übe se zungen und Kommen a en 1–3. Gö ingen.
Hall, E. 1989: In en ing he Ba ba ian. G eek Sel ‑De ini ion h ough T agedy. Ox o d.
Ha mann, U. 2017: Die Pa hischen S a ionen des Isido on Cha ax. Eine Handels ou e, eine Mili ä ka e
ode ein We k geog aphische Geleh samkei ? In: Wiesehö e – Mülle eds. 2017, 87–125.
52 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
Ha og, F. 1988 (1980): The Mi o o He odo us. The Rep esen a ion o he O he in he W i ing o His o y. T ansl.
J. Lloyd. Be keley– Los Angeles.
Hause , S.R.2005: Die Ewigen Nomaden? Beme kungen zu He kun , Mili ä , S aa sau bau und nomadis-
chen T adi ionen de A sakiden. In: B.O. Meißne – O. Schmi – M. Somme (eds.): K ieg– Gesellscha –
Ins i u ionen. Bei äge zu eine Ve gleichenden K iegsgeschich e. Be lin, 163–208.
Heckel, W. 2020: In he Pa h o Conques . Resis ance o Alexande he G ea . Ox o d.
Hiebe , F.T.– Cambon, P.eds. 2011: A ghanis an. C oss oads o he Ancien Wo ld. London.
Ho mann, D. 2018: G iechische Wel geschich e au La ein. Ius ins ‘Epi oma His o ia um Pompei T ogi’ und die
Geschich skonzep ion des Pompeius T ogus. S u ga .
Hölsche , T. 2000: Feindwel en– Glückswel en. Pe se , Ken au en und Amazonen. In: T. Hölsche (ed.):
Gegenwel en. Zu den Kul u en G iechenlands und Roms in de An ike. München, 287–320.
Hol , F.L. 1989: Alexande he G ea and Bac ia. The Fo ma ion o aG eek F on ie in Cen al Asia. Leiden.
Hol , F.L. 1999: Thunde ing Zeus. The Making o Hellenis ic Bac ia. Be keley.
Hol , F.L. 2005: In o he Land o Bones. Alexande he G ea in A ghanis an. Be keley.
Hoo, M. 2022: Eu asian Localisms. Towa ds aT anslocal App oach o Hellenism and Inbe weenness in Cen al
Eu asia, Thi d o Fi s Cen u ies BCE. O iens e Occidens 41. S u ga .
Hoo, M. 2024: The Powe o Imp ess and Imp essing o Powe . T anslocal De elopmen s in Bak ian Kingship
and Royal Rep esen a ion in he Thi d and Second Cen u ies BC.In: Michels– Lich enbe ge – Beck
eds. 2024, 361–406.
In e nizzi, A. 1999: Scul u e di me allo da Nisa. Cul u a g eca e cul u a i anica in Pa hia. Ac a I anica 35. Leu en.
In e nizzi, A. 2001: A sacid Dynas ic A . Pa hica 3, 133–157.
In e nizzi, A. 2005: Rep esen a ions o Gods in Pa hian Nisa. Pa hica 7, 71–80.
In e nizzi, A. 2007. The Cul u e o Pa hian Nisa be ween S eppe and Empi e. In: J. C ibb– G. He mann
(eds.): A e Alexande . Cen al Asia be o e Islam. Ox o d, 163–173.
In e nizzi, A. 2009: Nisa Pa ica. Le scul u e ellenis iche. Fi enze.
In e nizzi, A. 2011a: Pa hian A – A sacid A . Topoi 17, 189–207.
In e nizzi, A. 2011b: Royal Cul in A sakid Pa hia. In: P.P. Iossi – A.S. Chankowski– C.C. Lo be (eds.):
Mo e han Men, Less han Gods. S udies on Royal Cul and Impe ial Wo ship. P oceedings o he In e na ion-
al Colloquium O ganized by he Belgian School a A hens, No embe 1–2, 2007. S udia Hellenis ica 51.
Leu en, 659–690.
In e nizzi, A. 2012: Rema ks on he In e cul u al Encoun e s in he Hellenized O ien . Pa hica 14, 89–108.
In e nizzi, A.– Lippolis, C. eds. 2008: Nisa Pa ica. Rice che nel complesso monumen ale a sacide 1990–2006.
Monog a ie di Mesopo amia 9. Fi enze.
Ka unen, K. 1997: India and he Hellenis ic Wo ld. S udia O ien alia 83. Helsinki.
Khazano , A.M. 1983: Nomads and he Ou side Wo ld. Madison.
Kosmin, P.J. 2014: The Land o he Elephan Kings. Space, Te i o y, and Ideology in he Seleucid Empi e. Cam-
b idge– London.
K i , B. 2001: Dynas ic T ansi ions in he Coinage o Bac ia. An iochus–Diodo us–Eu hydemus. Classical Nu-
misma ic S udies 4. Lancas e .
Kuh , A. 2007: The Pe sian Empi e. ACo pus o Sou ces o he Achaemenid Pe iod. London– New Yo k.
Lecoq, P.1997: Les insc ip ions de la Pe se achéménide. Pa is.
Lecuyo , G. 2021: Aï Khanoum, be ween Eas and Wes . AComposi e A chi ec u e. In: Mai s ed. 2021, 539–552.
Le ne , J.D. 1999: The Impac o Seleucid Decline on he Eas e n I anian Pla eau. The Founda ions o A sacid Pa hia
and G aeco ‑Bac ia. His o ia Einzelsch i en. S u ga .
Le ouge -Cohen, C. 2009: Les Pa hes son -ils des nomades comme les au es? In: P.Rouilla d (ed.): Po ai s
de mig an s, po ai s de colons. Colloque de la Maison René -Ginou ès. Pa is, 161–168.
Linds öm, G. 2021: Sou he n Tajikis an. In: Mai s ed. 2021b, 286–312.
Lippolis, C. 2009: No es on he I anian T adi ions in he A chi ec u e o Pa hian Nisa. Elec um 15, 53–63.
53MILINDA HOO
Lippolis, C. 2011: Old Nisa. The Tu kmen -I alian A chaeological P ojec . In: M. Mamedo (ed.): Monumen s
o His o y and Cul u e o Tu kmenis an. Disco e ies, Resea ches and Res o a ion o 20 Yea s o Independence.
Ashgaba , 286–301.
Lippolis, C. 2014: Pa hian Nisa. A and A chi ec u e in he Homeland o he A sacids. In: P.Le iche (ed.):
A e ci ilisa ion de l’o ien hellénisé. Rencon es e échanges cul u els d’Alexand e aux Sassanides. Hommage
à Daniel Schlumbe ge . Pa is, 223–230.
Li inskiy,B.A. 2010: P oblems o he His o y and Cul u e o Bak ia in Ligh o A chaeological Exca a ions
in Cen al Asia. Anabasis 1, 23–48.
Mai s, R.2007: E hnici y and Fune a y P ac ice in Hellenis ic Bac ia. In: H. Sch oede – P.J. B ay– P.Ga d-
ne – V. Je e son– E. Macaulay -Lewis (eds.): C ossing F on ie s. The Oppo uni ies and Challenges o In e ‑
disciplina y App oaches o A chaeology. Ox o d, 111–124.
Mai s, R.2011: The A chaeology o he Hellenis ic Fa Eas . ASu ey. BAR In e na ional Se ies 2196. Ox o d.
Mai s, R.2013: The Hellenis ic Fa Eas . F om he Oikoumene o he Communi y. In: E. S a ianopoulou
(ed.): Shi ing Social Imagina ies in he Hellenis ic Pe iod. Na a ions, P ac ices, and Images. Leiden, 365–385.
Mai s, R.2014a: He oes and Philosophe s? G eek Pe sonal Names and Thei Bea e s in Hellenis ic Bac ia.
In: M.N. Wal e – J.P.I o -Adle (eds.): The Silk Road. In e wo en His o y 1. Long ‑Dis ance T ade, Cul u e, and
Socie y. Camb idge, 71–100.
Mai s, R.2014b: The Hellenis ic Fa Eas . A chaeology, Language, and Iden i y in G eek Cen al Asia. Be keley.
Mai s, R.2021a: G eek Insc ip ions and Documen a y Tex s and he G aeco -Roman His o ical T adi ion.
In: Mai s ed. 2021b, 419–429.
Mai s, R. ed. 2021b: The G aeco ‑Bac ian and Indo ‑G eek Wo lds. London– New Yo k.
Mai s, R.2022: Cen al Asian Challenges o Seleucid Au ho i y. Synch onism, Co ela ion, and Causa ion
as His o iog aphical De ices in Jus in’sEpi ome o T ogus. In: P.Kosmin– I.S. Moye (eds.): Cul u es o
Resis ance in he Hellenis ic Eas . Ox o d, 231–245.
Manasse o, N. 2018: Abanche o con gli e oi. La mobilia in a o io dalla Casa Quad a a aNisa Pa ica. Alessand ia.
Ma inez -Sè e, L. 2014: The Spa ial O ganiza ion o Ai Khanoum, aG eek Ci y in A ghanis an. Ame ican
Jou nal o A chaeology 118/2, 267–283.
Ma inez -Sè e, L. 2015: Ai Khanoum and G eek Domina ion in Cen al Asia. Elec um 22, 17–46.
Ma inez -Sè e, L. 2016: Aï Khanoum– échanges e ésis ances. In: M. Espagne– S. Go shenina– F. G ene –
S. Mus a ae – C. Rapin (eds.): Asie cen ale, ans e s cul u els le long de la Rou e de la soie. Pa is, 97–114.
Ma inez -Sè e, L. 2018: Ai Khanoum a e 145 BC– The Pos -Pala ial Occupa ion. Ancien Ci iliza ions om
Scy hia o Sibe ia 24, 354–419.
Ma inez -Sè e, L. 2021: A ghan Bac ia. In: Mai s ed. 2021b, 217–248.
Ma inez -Sè e, L. 2023: Seleucid Religious A chi ec u e in Ai Khanum. ACase S udy. In: Da yaee– Rol-
linge – Canepa eds. 2023, 217–251.
Masson, M.E.– Pugachenko a, G.A. 1982: The Pa hian Rhy ons o Nisa. Monog a ie di Mesopo amia 1. Flo ence.
Michels, C.– Lich enbe ge , A.– Beck, H. eds. 2024: The Same, bu Di e en ? Mona chical Rule and Rep‑
esen a ion in he Hellenis ic Wo ld. S udies in Ancien Mona chies 11. S u ga .
Mil sios, N. 2013: The Shaping o Na a i e in Polybius. Be lin.
Mo is, L. 2021: Economic De elopmen unde he G eek Kingdoms o Cen al Asia o he Kushan Empi e.
Empi e, Mig a ion, and Monas e ies. In: S. on Reden (ed.): Local, Regional, and Impe ial Economies. Hand-
book o Ancien A o -Eu asian Economies 2. Be lin, 695–744.
Mülle , S. 2017: Apollo os als His o iog aph pa hische Geschich e. In: Wiesehö e – Mülle eds. 2017,
61–69.
Nicholson, E. 2020: Hellenic Romans and Ba ba ic Macedonians. Polybius on Hellenism and Changing
Hegemonic Powe s. Ancien His o y Bulle in 34/1, 38–73.
Na ain, A.K. 2008 (1989): The G eeks o Bac ia and India. In: A.E. As in– F.W. Walbank– M.W. F ede iksen–
R.M. Ogil ie (eds.): The Camb idge Ancien His o y. Rome and he Medi e anean o 133 BC.Camb idge, 388–522.

54 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
Nikono o , V.P.1998: Apollodo us o A emi a and he Da e o His ‘Pa hica’ Re isi ed. In: E. Dąb owa
(ed.): Ancien I an and he Medi e anean Wo ld. P oceedings o an In e na ional Con e ence in Honou
o P o esso Józe Wolski Held a he Jagiellonian Uni e si y, C acow, in Sep embe 1996. Elec um 2.
K aków, 107–122.
Olb ych , M.J. 2014: An Admi e o Pe sian Ways. Alexande he G ea ’sRe o ms in Pa hia -Hy cania and
he I anian He i age. In: T. Da yaee– K. Rezakhani (eds.): Exca a ing an Empi e. Achaemenid Pe sia in
Longue Du ée. Cos a Mesa, 37–62.
Olb ych , M.J. 2017: G eeks in he A sacid Empi e. In: Wiesehö e – Mülle eds. 2017, 3–27.
Olb ych , M.J. 2021: Ea ly A sakid Pa hia (ca. 250–165 B.C.). A he C oss oads o I anian, Hellenis ic, and Cen al
Asian His o y. Leiden– Bos on.
Os e hammel, J. 1987: Fo schungs eise und Kolonialp og amm. Fe dinand on Rich ho en und die E -
schließung Chinas im 19. Jah hunde . A chi ü Kul u geschich e 69/1, 150–195.
Pappala do, E. 2010: Nisa pa hica. I hy a ellenis ici. Monog a ie di Mesopo amia 12. Flo ence.
Pilipko, V.N. 2008: The Cen al Ensemble o he Fo ess Mih da ki . Layou and Ch onology. Pa hica 10,
33–51.
Quinn, J.C. 2013: Imagining he Impe ial Medi e anean. In: B. Gibson– T. Ha ison (eds.): Polybius and His
Wo ld. Essays in Memo y o F.W. Walbank. Ox o d, 337–352.
Rapin, C. 2007: Nomads and he Shaping o Cen al Asia. F om he Ea ly I on Age o he Kushan Pe iod. In:
J. C ibb– G. He mann (eds.): A e Alexande . Cen al Asia Be o e Islam. Ox o d, 29–72.
Rapin, C. 2021: The Empi e’sNo heas . In: B. Jacobs– R. Rollinge (eds.): ACompanion o he Achaemenid
Empi e. Hoboken, 311–323.
Rezakhani, K. 2010: The Road Tha Ne e Was. The Silk Road and T ans -Eu asian Exchange. Compa a i e
S udies o Sou h Asia, A ica and he Middle Eas 30/3, 420–433.
Robe , L. 1973: Les insc ip ions. In: P.Be na d (ed.): Campagnes 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968. Rappo p éliminai e.
Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum 1. Mémoi es de la Déléga ion a chéologique ançaise en A ghanis an 21. Pa is, 207–237.
Rolle , D.W. 2018: Hellenis ic Geog aphy om Epho us Th ough S abo. In: P.T. Keyse – J. Sca bo ough
(eds.): Ox o d Handbook o Science and Medicine in he Classical Wo ld. Ox o d, 315–336.
Rollinge , R.– Degen, J. 2021: Concep ualizing Uni e sal Rule ship. Conside a ions on he Pe sian Achae-
menid Wo ld iew and he Saka a he ‘End o he Wo ld.’ In: H. Klinko – A. Lu he – J. Wiesehö e (eds.):
Bei äge zu Geschich e und Kul u des al en I an und benachba e Gebie e. Fes sch i ü Rüdige Schmi .
S u ga , 187–224.
Romm, J.S. 1989: Belie and O he Wo lds. K esias and he Founding o he ‘Indian Wonde s’. In: E. Slusse –
E.S. Rabkin (eds.): Mindscapes. The Geog aphies o Imagined Wo lds. Ca bondale, 121–135.
Romm, J.S. 1994: The Edges o he Ea h in Ancien Though . Geog aphy, Explo a ion, and Fic ion. P ince on.
Rougemon , G. 2012: Insc ip ions g ecques d’I an e d’Asie cen ale. Co pus Insc ip ionum I anica umII. In‑
sc ip ions o he Seleucid and Pa hian Pe iods o Eas e n I an and Cen al AsiaI. Insc ip ions in Non ‑I anian
Languages 1. London.
Rücke , M. 2015: Nomaden als das ganz Ande e? In: C. Schube – A. Weiß (eds.): Amazonen zwischen G iechen
und Sky hen. Gegenbilde in My hos und Geschich e. Be lin, 13–37.
Said, E.W. 2003 (1978): O ien alism. London.5
Scha e , U. 2002: Nomaden in de Beg i lichkei an ike Au o en. Ma e ialien und P oblems ellungen.
In: S. Lede – B. S eck (eds.): Akkul u a ion und Selbs behaup ung. Mi eilungen des SFB ‘Di e enz und
In eg a ion’ 2. Halle, 167–208.
Schmi , R.2017: Isido s S a hmoi Pa hikoi aus Sich de i anischen Toponomas ik. In: Wiesehö e –
Mülle eds. 2017, 189–220.
Schneide , P.2015: The So -Called Con usion be ween India and E hiopia. The Eas e n and Sou he n Edges
o he Inhabi ed Wo ld om he G eco -Roman Pe spec i e. In: Bianche i– Ca audella– Geh ke
eds. 2015, 184–202.
55MILINDA HOO
Shaw, B. 1983: ‘Ea e s o Flesh, D inke s o Milk’. The Ancien Medi e anean Ideology o he Pas o al Nomad.
Ancien Socie y 13–14, 5–31.
Shenka , M. 2011: Temple A chi ec u e in he I anian Wo ld in he Hellenis ic Pe iod. In: A. Kou emenos– S.
Chand aseka an– R. Rossi (eds.): F om Pella o Gandha a. Hyb idisa ion and Iden i y in he A and A chi‑
ec u e o he Hellenis ic Eas . BAR In e na ional Se ies 2221. Ox o d, 117–139.
Shields, R.1991: Places on he Ma gin. Al e na i e Geog aphies o Mode ni y. London– New Yo k.
Skinne , J. 2012: The In en ion o G eek E hnog aphy. F om Home o He odo us. Ox o d.
Sonnabend, H. 2007. Die G enzen de Wel . Geog aphische Vo s ellungen de An ike. Da ms ad .
Spengle e al. 2014 = Spengle , R.– F ache i, M.– Doumani, P.– Rouse, L.– Ce ase i, B.– Bullion, E.–
Ma ’yashe A.: Ea ly Ag icul u e and C op T ansmission among B onze Age Mobile Pas o alis s o Cen al
Eu asia. P oceedings o he Royal Socie y. B– Biological Sciences 281, 20133382.
Spengle e al. 2021 = Spengle , R.– Ven esca Mille , A.– Schmaus, T.– Mo uzai ė Ma uze ičiū ė, G.– Mille ,
B.K.– Wilkin, S.– Taylo , W.T.T.– Li Y.– Robe s, P– Boi in, N.: An Imagined Pas ? Nomadic Na a i es
in Cen al Asian A chaeology. Cu en An h opology 62/3, 251–286.
S ančo, L. 2019: The Oasis in Time and Space. Dynamics o he Se lemen Pa e n. In: L. S ančo– P.Tušlo á
(eds.): She abad Oasis. T acing His o ical Landscape in Sou he n Uzbekis an. P aha, 253–386.
S ančo, L. 2021: Sou he n Uzbekis an. In: Mai s ed. 2021b, 49–85.
S a k, S. 2023: Some Obse a ions on he Ea ly Seleucid No heas e n F on ie . In: Da yaee– Rollinge –
Canepa eds. 2023, 287–304.
S oneman, R.2019: The G eek Expe ience o India. F om Alexande o he Indo ‑G eeks. P ince on.
S onk, J.P.2016: Semi amis’ Legacy. The His o y o Pe sia Acco ding o Diodo us o Sicily. Edinbu gh.
S oo man, R.2014: Hellenis ic Impe ialism and he Ideal o Wo ld Uni y. In: C. Rapp– H.A. D ake (eds.):
The Ci y in he Classical and Pos ‑Classical Wo ld. Changing Con ex s o Powe and Iden i y. Camb idge, 38–61.
S oo man, R.2020: The G ea Kings o Asia. Impe ial Ti ula u e in he Seleukid and Pos -Seleukid Middle
Eas . In: R. Oe jen (ed.): The G ea Kings o Asia. Impe ial Ti ula u e in he Seleukid and Pos ‑Seleukid Middle
Eas . Be lin, 123–157.
S oo man, R.2021: The Seleukid Empi e. In: Mai s ed. 2021b, 11–37.
S oo man, R.2023: AKingship Ri ual in Bak ia. An iochos III and he Reo ganiza ion o Seleukid Cen al
Asia. S udia He cynia 27/1, 88–97.
S oo man, R.2025: Cleopa a’sLanguages. In: E. Dąb owa (ed.): Au oc a ic Rule in An iqui y. P oceedings
o he 14 h Melammu Wo kshop, K aków, 4–6 Oc obe 2021. Melammu Wo kshops and Monog aphs 12.
Müns e , 205–227.
Syme, R.1988: The Da e o Jus in and he Disco e y o T ogus. His o ia 37/3, 358–371.
Ta n, W.W. 1938: The G eeks in Bac ia and India. Camb idge.
T aina, G. 2005: No es on Hellenism in he I anian Eas (Classico -O ien al No es, 6–8). I an & he Caucasus
9/1, 1–14.
an Wicke oo C ommelin, B. 1998: Die Pa he und die Pa hische Geschich e bei Pompeius T ogus-
-Ius in. In: Wiesehö e ed. 1998, 259–277.
Veu e, S. 1987: Le gymnase. A chi ec u e, cé amique, sculp u e. Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum 6. Mémoi es de la Délé-
ga ion a chéologique ançaise en A ghanis an 30. Pa is.
Vissche , M.S. 2020: Beyond Alexand ia. Li e a u e and Empi e in he Seleucid Wo ld. Camb idge.
Vlassopoulos, K. 2013: The S o ies o O he s: S o y elling and In e cul u al Communica ion in he He o-
do ean Medi e anean. In: E. Almago – J. Skinne (eds.): Ancien E hnog aphy. New App oaches. London–
Ox o d, 49–75.
Vogelsang, W.J. 1992: The Rise and O ganisa ion o he Achaemenid Empi e. The Eas e n I anian E idence. Leiden.
on Reden, S. 2023. Beyond he Silk Road. Towa d Al e na i e Models o T ansimpe ial Exchange. In: S.
on Reden (ed.): F on ie ‑Zone P ocesses and T ansimpe ial Exchange. Handbook o Ancien A o -Eu asian
Economies 3. Be lin, 7–41.
56 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2
Walbank, F.W. 1975: Symploke. I s Role in Polybius’ His o ies. In: D. Kagan (ed.): S udies in he G eek His o ians.
Camb idge, 197–212.
Walbank, F.W. 1981: The Hellenis ic Wo ld. Camb idge.
Wallace, S. 2024: Con es ing G ea ness. The Epi he Megas in he Hellenis ic Cou s. In: Michels – Lich -
enbe ge – Beck eds. 2024, 194–224.
Weiss, A. 2012: De Sky he is kein Ba ba . Übe legungen zum an iken Nomadenbild. In: R. Ka h–
M. Rücke (eds.): Die Gebu de g iechischen Weishei ode Anacha sis, Sky he und G ieche. Mi eilungen des
SFB ‘Di e enz und In eg a ion’ 13. Halle, 183–194.
Weiss, A. 2015: Ein üh ung: Die Sky hen als pa adigma ische Nomaden. In: A. Ge s acke – A. Kuhne –
F. Oldemeie – N. Quenouille (eds.): Sky hen in de La einischen Li e a u . Be lin, 17–35.
Wiesehö e , J. 1996. ‘King o Kings’ and ‘Philhellên’. Kingship in A sacid I an. In: P.J. B ay– R. Engbe g-
-Pede sen– L. Hannes ad– J. Zahle (eds.): Aspec s o Hellenis ic Kingship. Aa hus, 55–66.
Wiesehö e , J. ed. 1998: Das Pa he eich und seine Zeugnisse. Bei äge des in e na ionalen Colloquiums, Eu in,
27.–30. Juni 1996. S u ga .
Wiesehö e , J.– Mülle , S. eds. 2017: Pa hika. G eek and Roman Au ho s’ Views o he A sacid Empi e.
G iechisch ‑Römische Bilde des A sakiden eiches. Classica e O ien alia 15. Wiesbaden.
Wolski, J. 1984: Su le ‘philhellenisme’ des A sacides. Gé ion 1, 145–156.
Wolski, J. 1989: L’hellénisme e l’I an. Collec ion de l’Ins i u des Sciences e Techniques de l’An iqui é 377/1,
439–446.
WuX. 2017: Ruling he Un ulable. Bac ia in he Achaemenid Empi e. In: K.O. Webe – E. Hi e– L. Kha chadou-
ian– A.T. Smi h (eds.): Fi ul His o ies and Un uly Publics. Re hinking Tempo ali y and Communi y in Eu asian
A chaeology. Leiden– Bos on, 258–287.
Ya dley, J.C. 2003: Jus in and Pompeius T ogus. AS udy o he Language o Jus in’sEpi ome o T ogus. To on o.
Ya dley, J.C.– Heckel, W. 1997: Jus in. Epi ome o he Philippic His o y o Pompeius T ogus 1. Books 11–12. Ox o d.
Ancien sou ces
Ael. NA = Aelianus, De na u a animalium. T ansl. A.F. Schol ield. Aelian 1. Loeb Classical Lib a y (LCL) 446.
Camb idge Mass. 1958.
Aesch. Pe s. = Aeschylus, Pe sae. T ansl. A.H. Somme s ein. Aeschylus. LCL 145. Camb idge Mass. 2009.
Amm. Ma c. = Ammianus Ma cellinus, His o iae. T ansl. J.C. Rol e. LCL 315. Camb idge Mass. 1940.
App. Sy . = Appianus, Sy iake. T ansl. B. McGing. Appian 3. LCL 4. Camb idge Mass. 2019.
A is . Pol. = A is o le, Poli ica. T ansl. H. Rackham. A is o le. LCL 264. Camb idge Mass. 1932.
A . Anab. = A ianus, Anabasis Alexand ou. T ansl. P.A. B un . A ian 1. LCL 236. Camb idge Mass. 1976.
A . In. = A ianus, Indica. T ansl. P.A. B un . A ian 2. LCL 269. Camb idge Mass. 1983.
A . Pe ipl. M. Eux. = A ianus, Pe iplus Pon i Euxini. T ansl. A. Liddle. A ian. Pe iplus Pon i Euxini. London 2003.
A h. = A henaeus, Deipnosophis ae. T ansl. S. Douglas Olson. A henaeus I. LCL 345. Camb idge Mass. 2007
Be os. Bab. = Be ossus, Babyloniaca. T ansl. S.M. Bu s ein. The Babyloniaca o Be ossus. Malibu. 1978.
Cu . = Quin us Cu ius Ru us, His o iae Alexand i Magni. T ansl. J.C. Rol e. Quin us Cu ius 2. LCL 369.
Camb idge Mass. 1946.
C esias, see Pho ius.
Dio Ch ys. O . = Dio Ch ysos omus, O a iones. T ansl. H.L. C osby. Dio Ch ysos om 4. LCL 376. Camb idge
Mass. 1946.
Diod. Sic. = Diodo us Siculus, Biblio heca his o ica. T ansl. C.H. Old a he . Diodo us Siculus 1, 4. LCL 279, 375.
Camb idge Mass. 1933.
Hd . = He odo us, His o iae. T ansl. A.D. Godley. He odo us 2, 4. LCL 117, 118. Camb idge Mass. 1921, 1925.
Hes. Op. = Hesiodus, Ope a e dies (E ga kai heme ai). T ansl. G.W. Mos . Hesiod. LCL 57. Camb idge Mass. 2018.
Hippoc. Ae . = Hippoc a es, De ae e aquis e locis. T ansl. P.Po e . Hippoc a es 1. LCL 147. Camb idge Mass. 2022.
57MILINDA HOO
Isid. = Isido us o Cha ax, S a hmoi Pa hikoi. T ansl. W.H. Scho . Pa hian S a ions by Isido e o Cha ax. An
accoun o he o e land ade ou e be ween he Le an and India in he i s cen u y B.C. Philadelphia 1914.
Joseph. BJ = Josephus, Bellum Judaicum. T ansl. H.S .J. Thacke ay. Josephus 3. LCL 210. Camb idge Mass. 1928.
Jus . Epi . = Jus in, Epi oma His o ia um Philippica um Pompei T ogi. T ansl. J.C. Ya dley. Jus in 1. LCL 557. 2024.
Paus. = Pausanias, Pe iegesis Hellados. T ansl. W.H.S. Jones. Pausanias 4. LCL 297. Camb idge Mass. 1935.
Philos . VA = Fla ius Philos a us, Vi a Apollonii Tyanei. T ansl. C.P.Jones. Philos a us 1, 2. LCL 16, 17. Cam-
b idge Mass. 2005.
Pho . Bibl. = Pho ius, Biblio heca. T ansl. R. Hen y. Pho ius, Biblio hèque 1. Pa is 1959.
Plin. HN. = C. Plinius Secundus, Na u alis his o ia. T ansl. H. Rackham. Pliny 2. LCL 352. Camb idge Mass.
Plu . Vi . Alex. = Plu a chus, Vi a Alexand i. T ansl. B. Pe in. Plu a ch 7. LCL 99. Camb idge Mass. 1919.
Polyb. = Polybius, His o iai. T ansl. W.R. Pa on. Polybius 4. LCL 159. Camb idge Mass. 2011.
Pompon. = Pomponius Mela, De cho og aphia. T ansl. F. Rome , Pomponius Mela’sDesc ip ion o he Wo ld.
Ann A bo 1998.
Ps.-Scymn. = Pseudo -Scymnus, Pe iodos es en komikoi me oi eis Nikomeden basilea. T ansl. D.W. Rolle . Th ee
Ancien Geog aphical T ea ises in T ansla ion. Hanno, he King Nikomedes Pe iodos, and A ienus. London–
New Yo k. 2022.
SHA = Sc ip o es His o iae Augus ae. T ansl. D. Magie. His o ia Augus a 3. LCL 263. Camb idge Mass. 2022.
S .= S abo, Geog aphica. T ansl. H.L. Jones. S abo 1, 5, 7. LCL 49, 211, 241. Camb idge Mass. 1917, 1928, 1930.
Val. Max = Vale ius Maximus, Fac a e dic a memo abilia. T ansl. D.R. Shackle on Bailey. Vale ius Maximus
1. LCL 492. Camb idge Mass. 2000.
Xen. Cy . = Xenophon, Cy opaedia. T ansl. W. Mille . Xenophon 2. LCL 52. Camb idge Mass. 1914.
Milinda Hoo
U ech Uni e si y
Depa men o His o y and A His o y
Ancien His o y and Classical Ci iliza ion
D i 6, 3512 BS U ech , Ne he lands
m. [email p o ec ed]