as at Rome; hence the statements which classical writers make with regard to Parthian origins may have a basis in Parthian tradition. In any case we cannot profitably abandon all the traditional history of this early period as legendary merely because we are unable to check its accuracy in more than one source or because the sources themselves are much later in date. Such action, though perhaps based on better historical method, would leave the ancient historian small framework upon which to build in future years. The reader must bear in mind the sources from which the narrative for these early years is drawn and evaluate it accordingly.
The most important single source for this early period is Justin's epitome of Trogus Pompeius' history. This work suffers from the combined errors of two persons, plus the copyists' mistakes, but some of the severe criticism leveled at it comes from readers who are prone to forget that it is an epitome. At many points it is so abridged that, without the necessary background, compression appears as error. In a number of cases the prologues of the original work supply additional facts and correct or make clear the epitome.
For the history before 141 b.c. the other classical sources consist largely of scattered references in such generally reliable writers as Strabo, Arrian, and Polybius, most of whom are not contemporary with events described but can in general be trusted. The prob-
