Topoi 17 (2011) p. 189-207 Parthian Art – Arsacid Art

A preliminary terminological discussion may contribute to a better understanding of the nature of Parthian art in the various countries of the Arsacid, or Parthian empire. On a historic plane, there cannot be any incertitude about the denomination « Parthian empire » , which was introduced by the ancient historians to designate an empire that included a far larger number of countries than Parthia proper. Parthia was the cradle of the ruling dynasty, the Arsacids, and the region of irradiation of their subsequent imperial growth. In modern historiography, this denomination of the Parthian state on a geographic and territorial basis contrasts with that on a dynastic basis in use for the preceding and following Iranian empires, the Achaemenid and Sasanid empires, as well as with that in use for the Seleucid interlude, an interlude of great historic and cultural relevance for the ancient Orient. Against consolidated and continuous use, J. Wolski chose with right for his book, L’empire des Arsacides, the dynastic term which is more coherent in a symmetrical vision of history, although the name « Parthian » could perhaps fit better the looser structure of this state. The comprehensive term « Parthian » , which is legitimated by the ancient historians, is generally also applied to the various and complex cultural manifestations in the countries that fell under Arsacid rule, independently from the different extension of the Parthian empire in the different phases of its long history. An imprecise if not totally inappropriate use of the name is often found in archaeological literature : there is often question of « Parthian » coins, for example, also when specifically « Arsacid » emissions are intended, independently from the mints concerned and relying on their primary informative value for chronology, which is so important in archaeological contexts. More complex and not always clear is the value of the term « Parthian » given to the works of architecture, art and handicrafts in regions that in the past had lived cultural experiences autonomous from Iran, for in this case, following the definition of Parthian art given by M. Rostovtzeff, the denomination acquires a value that does not simply make reference to chronology, but implies a determinant descriptive qualification of the nature of the works concerned. And yet, the main cultural features of these works can vary from province to province