INTRODUCTION

This book is a regional study of the middle Euphrates, Mesopotamia and Palmyra set in the broader context of conflict between the powerful empires of Rome and Iran. Chronologically it begins with Pompey’s establishment of the province of Syria and ends with the first Syrian campaign of Shapur I, which was concluded c. ad257/258. Within this time-frame the greater focus lies in the first half of the third century, and considerable attention is also paid to events in this region in the latter half of the second century.

The middle Euphrates was clearly the most important geographical feature in the area that comprised eastern Syria and Mesopotamia. The river and its most important tributary, the Khabur, performed functions in antiquity that fundamentally defined the nature of territory in Palmyra and Mesopotamia. The Euphrates and Khabur allowed quick communication, reliable movement of trade and effective invasion routes for the armies of both the Iranian and Roman empires. It also allowed intensive agricultural production for hundreds of kilometres along its banks and this was vital to populations in both eastern Syria and in Mesopotamia. The rivers were not only significant regionally but also played roles in ancient conceptions of the eastern frontier throughout the Roman Empire.

The literature of the late Roman Republic and early Empire generally refers to the Euphrates in the broader context of events in the Roman Empire itself. References to the Euphrates in the literature, therefore, are often made in the context of wars and other imperial activities. Evidence from epigraphy and papyri, however, demonstrates the regional significance of the Euphrates to both Palmyra and Mesopotamia. Archaeological evidence is site-specific by its nature, but it can be used to make observations about activities regionally and occasionally about events of importance to the Roman and Iranian empires more broadly.

It is partly for the above reasons that this book employs a number of historical lenses through which to view aspects of the history of this important section of the Roman Near East. Chapter 1 analyses the Euphrates’ initial role as a boundary between Roman and Parthian interests up to the territorial organization of Septimius Severus at the end of the second century AD. This provides important background to developments on the middle Euphrates and Khabur rivers in the third century.

Historical studies of Palmyra are increasingly the domain of specialists due to the nature of the evidence discovered at Palmyra itself and elsewhere. The role Palmyra came to play in Rome’s extension of power to northern Mesopotamia and eastern Syria by the early third century was particularly important and it is for these reasons that Palmyra is considered separately in Chapter 2.

Following the territorial reorganization under Septimius Severus, which saw the formation of the provinces of Mesopotamia and Osrhoene and the division of Syria, the middle Euphrates and Khabur rivers became significant for a number of reasons. They bolstered Roman power in northern Mesopotamia through the provision of supplies and troops when necessary. They continued to play significant roles in prospective Roman invasions of the Iranian Empire and, most importantly, the fertile territory on their banks became essential territorial components in the new provinces of Syria Coele and Syria Phoenice. The Dura Europos and Euphrates papyri provide some detailed evidence for the Roman military and administrative organization of the middle Euphrates and Khabur rivers. They indicate that Roman soldiers were dotted all over the landscape of these rivers. Their roles are the subject of ongoing debate, but on the basis of the archaeological evidence the fortifications they occupied were not large enough to provide any meaningful defence in the event of large-scale invasions. Chapter 3 is a detailed attempt to locate many of the fortifications referred to in the papyri on the Euphrates and Khabur today and argues that their roles were not primarily defensive but focused more on the establishment of Roman power and authority on the landscape.

Undoubtedly, the most important archaeological site on the middle Euphrates is Dura Europos. The archaeological evidence from the site is in many ways unequalled in the Roman East. The site has been the subject of ongoing study in both archaeological and historical contexts. We have come a long way in understanding the city’s role and the value of the evidence discovered at the site since the 1920s, but there are still a number of difficulties in this respect. The problem has partly come about due to the nature of the excavations in the 1920s and 1930s. This, combined with the ongoing influence of the brilliant but highly speculative interpretations made by Rostovtzeff and others as they dug, has made writing the history of the city a difficult undertaking. Chapter 4 is partly focused on such a history placed in the context of broader historical events during the Seleu-cid, Parthian and Roman periods of control of the city. A particular focus of Chapter 4 is also the deconstruction of some long-held ideas about Dura - mostly those of a military nature in the third century. Much of the evidence used to reach ideas about the Roman military presence at Dura and its role on the middle Euphrates is particularly problematic, yet speculative conclusions made in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s have largely gone unchallenged and are still accepted in modern scholarship. In deconstructing these conclusions through a re-evaluation of the evidence it is argued that there is no clear proof for the inferiority of auxiliaries to legionaries and that conclusions about the office of Dux Ripae require serious reconsideration. These observations have implications for ideas about the purposes of the Roman military presence on the Euphrates and Khabur rivers in the third century AD.

When the Sasanian Persians overthrew the Parthian Arsacids and took control of the lands of Iran c. AD 224, the Romans knew little of what lay in store for them. Within 40 years, the Roman eastern provinces lay devastated and it was not until the reign of Aurelian that Roman control began to be reasserted in any meaningful way. In the early wars between the Sasanians and Rome, the middle Euphrates was of central importance as an invasion route and in supporting the province of Mesopotamia, which was the subject of dispute between the two empires. After Shapur I’s ‘second contest’ (the so-called first Syrian campaign) against the Romans concluded in the late 250s, the middle Euphrates below the Khabur river was effectively abandoned by the Romans while the Persians did not seek to establish control anywhere above Anatha. Chapter 5 undertakes a detailed history of the conflict between Rome and Persia from c. 224 to c. 257, and the relevant evidence from the middle Euphrates and Khabur rivers is placed in the context of these conflicts. The chronological point at which the analysis concludes coincides with the shift in military focus further to the north, which was a feature of Shapur’s third contest against the Romans in 259/260.