The Greeks in Bactria and India c26: Appendix 14. The Supposed Oxo-Caspian Trade-Route
The Greeks in Bactria and India c26
- Language
- English
Appendix 14. The Supposed Oxo-Caspian Trade-Route
c26.2
This route from India to the West by the Oxus and the Caspian, sometimes called the northern route, is supposed to be given twice by Strabo¹ and once by Pliny;² there is nothing else, for Solinus 19, 4 is merely copied from Pliny. The correct explanation was given by Professor Kiessling in 1914,³ but it was given in a couple of sentences in the middle of a very long article on Hyrcania and has never been taken up or followed; and the whole subject has been such a mass of misunderstanding that it is worth setting out the formal proofs.
c26.3
¹ Strabo 11, 73: καὶ τὸν Ὦξον δὲ τὸν ὁρίζοντα τὴν Βακτριανὴν ἀπὸ τῆς Σογδιανῆς οὕτω φασὶν εὔπλουν εἶναι ὥστε τὸν Ἰνδικὸν φόρτον ὑπερκομισθέντα εἰς αὐτὸν ῥᾳδίως εἰς τὴν Ὑρκανίαν κατάγεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ἐφεξῆς τόπους μέχρι τοῦ Πόντου διὰ τῶν ποταμῶν. Strabo 11, 509. Aristobulus says that the Oxus is the greatest river he himself saw in Asia, except the Indian rivers: φησὶ δὲ καὶ εὔπλουν εἶναι καὶ οὗτος καὶ Ἐρατοσθένης παρὰ Πατροκλέους λαβών, καὶ πολλὰ τῶν Ἰνδικῶν φορτίων κατάγειν εἰς τὴν Ὑρκανίαν θάλατταν, ἐντεῦθεν δ’ εἰς τὴν Ἀλβανίαν περαιοῦσθαι καὶ διὰ τοῦ Κύρου καὶ τῶν ἑξῆς τόπων εἰς τὸν Εὔξεινον καταφέρεσθαι.
c26.4
² Pliny 6, 52 (i.e. Varro), Jahn’s text: Adicit idem (Varro) Pompei ductu exploratum in Bactros 7 diebus ex India perveniri Iachrum ad flumen quod in Oxum influat, et ex eo per Caspium in Cyrum subvectos, et 5 non amplius dierum terrano itinere ad Phasim in Pontum Indicas posse devehi merces. This as it stands is neither grammar nor sense; the whole passage is framed on the words exploratum posse merces and governed by posse, and subvectos therefore ought to be subvectas and the following et should be omitted; subvectas, to agree with merces, is guaranteed by the subject of περαιοῦσθαι in Strabo 11, 509 being ‘goods’. Read therefore ‘in Cyrum subvectas 5 non amplius’ etc.
c26.5
³ Kiessling, *Hyrcania* in PW, the best thing on Patrocles. Kiessling makes two points: (a) col. 465, Pliny no less than Eratosthenes depended on Patrocles; (b) col. 467, Patrocles said that goods *could* easily come down the Oxus to the Caspian and so to the Cyrus, and this was turned into a statement that they *did* come. That, in a nutshell, is the whole of the matter.
c26.6
Strabo 11, 73. A comparison with 11, 509 shows both that this is from Patrocles and that it is not Eratosthenes’ version of Patrocles; it may therefore be taken to be what Patrocles said himself. The literal translation is: ‘The Oxus is sufficiently navigable for the Indian trade to be carried across to it and to be easily brought down the river to the Hyrcanian (sea)⁴ and the places beyond as far as the Black Sea by way of the rivers', *i.e.* the Cyrus and the Phasis. This sober statement is part of Patrocles' report to Antiochus I, and in Greek, as in English, it can mean two things: (1) that the Indian trade was being brought down the Oxus to the Caspian and beyond, and (2) that it was not being so brought but easily could be. The word 'easily' shows that (2) is the real meaning of Patrocles' report; he told Antiochus that it would be easy to make a trade route. Be it remembered that, when he was exploring the Caspian, he had taken the mouth of the Atrek for that of the Oxus¹ and had therefore supposed that the Oxus entered that sea.
c26.7
⁴ ἡ Ὑρκανία is only used for the Hyrcanian sea when the context is clear, as Strabo 11, 129 and 11, 519; Arr..v, 26, 2; Ptol. 5, 13, 6. As it must certainly mean the sea here—that was the point of getting a report at all—we have not the whole context.
c26.8
¹ Kiessling *op. cit.* col. 464.
c26.9
Strabo XI, 509. Aristobulus is probably only cited here as an authority for the Oxus being εὔπλους, for it is unlikely that he wrote late enough to use Patrocles; however, it does not matter if he did use him, for that would only mean that he understood the report as Eratosthenes did. What follows is Eratosthenes' version of Patrocles: 'Eratosthenes, citing Patrocles, says that the Oxus is navigable and brings down many goods from India to the Hyrcanian sea; thence they cross the sea to Albania and are carried by way of the Cyrus and the places beyond to the Black Sea.' Note that Eratosthenes has altered the whole sense by turning 'easily' into 'many goods'. This makes it clear, first that Strabo II, 73 is Patrocles' own version as given in his report, and secondly that Eratosthenes understood that report in sense (1) above (*i.e.* misunderstood it) and, perhaps quoting from memory, made an alteration in the report which confirmed his own misinterpretation. Strabo, who had himself later knowledge (*e.g.* from Apollodorus), duly repeats Eratosthenes' version, though, after giving Eratosthenes' views generally on this part of the world, he says impatiently (XI, 510) that Eratosthenes tries to reconcile a lot more things of the sort but that he has given quite enough; it may not have escaped his notice that what Eratosthenes says is in direct conflict with his (Strabo's) own statement that the Caspian was not navigated and not used,² for which he proceeds to give his reasons (he means of course serious navigation, not native fishing boats and so on). The only other point worth notice is the fact that you could not have a regular commercial route across, or rather coasting round, a large expanse of water without also having ports, both for shipping and money-changers; and no port, Greek or native, anywhere on the Caspian is ever mentioned by anybody.
c26.10
² XI, 509, ἄπλους τε οὖσα καὶ ἀργός. Improved upon by Mela, III, 5, 3: it was too full of monsters for navigation.
c26.11
I come to Varro (Pliny VI, 52). Varro says that it was found out (not 'explored') on Pompey's expedition that in seven days goods came through (or could come through) from India to the river of Bactra, which ran into the Oxus, 'and from the Oxus these goods, carried (or "if carried") across the Caspian to the Cyrus, can be brought down the Phasis to the Black Sea with a land portage not exceeding five days'. The India-Bactria time-table might come from anywhere and does not concern this Appendix, while the overland porterage between Cyrus and Phasis was a well-known thing¹ and may be left out; what remains is the statement ‘Indian goods can be brought from Bactria *via* the Oxus, Caspian, Cyrus, and Phasis to the Black Sea’. This *is* Patrocles’ report, for like that report it is put in a shape which could mean two things: (1) goods are brought, (2) goods could be brought, but are not. It would be too much of a coincidence to suppose that independent reports were made to Antiochus I and to Pompey, each of which was drawn up in language legitimately susceptible of two meanings. Pompey was never near the Caspian, and the man he commissioned to find out for him merely quoted Patrocles, adding the well-known land porterage; probably it was the only thing he could do. But one point is clear; had there been a trade-route in active operation, Pompey would not have called for a report on its feasibility.
c26.12
¹ Strabo XI, 498. Seleucus’ alleged intention to connect the Caspian and the Black Sea by a canal (Pliny VI, 31) meant connecting the Cyrus and the Phasis by a waterway to do away with this land porterage and avoid breaking bulk. The Soviet government to-day have a plan to connect the Caspian and the Sea of Azov by a ship canal (the Manych canal) a long way to the north of the Cyrus (N. Mikhaylov, *Soviet geography* 1935 p. 192 and Plan p. 185); but this goes far beyond anything which Seleucus can have dreamt of, and would traverse country unknown to him.
c26.13
There was never then in existence more than one independent statement about an Oxo-Caspian trade-route, Patrocles’ report to Antiochus I, and the word ‘easily’ shows that its real meaning was, ‘You can easily make a trade-route from Bactria across the Caspian to the Black Sea if you like.’ This is confirmed by Strabo’s *ἄπλους* and by Pompey’s enquiry whether such a thing was feasible. There is no evidence at all that, in Greek times, any such trade-route from India ever existed.²
c26.14
² There was in existence in Strabo’s own time (XI, 506) a trade-route from the East to the Black Sea which passed *northward* of the Caspian, the Aorsi (who had by now absorbed the remnant of the Massagetae) being the middlemen, and which became important later; but this has nothing to do with the supposed Oxo-Caspian route.
Linked texts (1)
- Naturalis historia — C. Plinius Secundus, Latin