The Greeks of Afghanistan Revisited

Jens Jakobsson

Abstract knowledge of these societies, but this is a

Historical sources concerning the limitation we have to accept, and if we were
Hellenistic kingdom in Bactria are scarce, able to sort the relationships between the
and studies of them should be supported by kings we might draw useful conclusions
the well-advanced numismatic analyses. This about the brief heyday and subsequent
article discusses the chronology and disintegration of their kingdoms. No doubt
genealogy of the Bactrian rulers. New incessant civil wars contributed to their
suggestions include: the status of Pantaleon downfall, for we know of more than forty
as a co-regent of Euthydemos II and the sovereigns.
reconstruction of a possible pedigree for Nevertheless, these Hellenistic outposts
Pantaleon and Agathokles; that Eukratides I were able to exist in some form at least a
adopted the title Great King due to quarter of a millennium after Alexander 1, in
developments in Persia; that the ‘Demetrius, fact longer than the Seleucids, who lost their
king of India’ mentioned by Justin could be grip on Iraq and Iran to the Parthians in the
identified with the Indian king Demetrios III, mid-2nd century BCE, and even the
who might be redated to ca. 150 BCE; and an Ptolemies in Egypt, who were finally
analysis of the relationship between dethroned by Augustus in 30 BCE. This
Eukratides I and the last Bactrian kings. The despite the civil wars, nomad invasions and
so-called commemorative coins of Eukratides the fact that the actual Greeks (and
I are tentatively attributed to Heliokles I, as Macedonians) must have been rather few.
steward of Eukratides I. There has been an old bias to see the eastern
Hellenistic kingdoms as weak and
Introduction ephemeral constructions, perhaps even with
The kingdom of Bactria in today’s ‘degenerate’ rulers, but modern scholars
Afghanistan is perhaps the most obscure and often stress the relative longevity and
unknown part of Hellenistic history, unless outstanding organisation of these states2.
we count its own tributary, the Indo-Greek This goes especially for Bactria, where
kingdom. Not only do remaining works of Greeks/Macedonians seem to have been
ancient historians contain relatively little better integrated with the indigenous
information about the centuries after population. The article will begin with some
Alexander the Great, those that do were methodological criticism.
largely written by scholars in the
Mediterranean area and events in the The gap between historians and
Hellenistic east were often neglected or numismatists
misunderstood. To construct only an outline One aim of this article is to point out the
of the events, we need support from far from satisfying status of current
archaeology and numismatics. A small scholarship. The background is as follows:
blessing is that the Greeks in the east have since the sources are so scarce, earlier
left behind a rich corpus of coins, often with
individual portraits of exquisite artistic 1
The last Indo-Greek ruler is often dated to
quality. The coins naturally put focus on the
around the shift BCE/CE.
kings who issued them rather than on broader 2
For instance Kuhrt and Sherwin-White, 1993.
scholars like W. W. Tarn often resorted to Seldeschlachts supports his criticisms
fanciful speculations about Indo-Greek with references to, among others, the works
history. Eventually these speculations were of Alberto Simonetta from the 1950s, long
questioned and abandoned – with the ironic before modern numismatic analysis began.
result that modern studies are often less Modern numismatic works inform us that
certain than older – but the advance of the there are three kings named Demetrios 4, but
field was slow until numismatic analysis also that only the first could have made any
began in earnest. For the last decades, conquests in India. Demetrios II was a short-
meticulous work by among others Osmund lived and probably much later 5 Bactrian king
Bopearachchi, Frank Holt, R. C. Senior and only. He is nowadays separated from
Joe Cribb has paved the way for a more exact Demetrios III, who actually struck Indian
chronology through analyses of overstrikes, coins – those coins were the reason that the
hoard findings and coin designs. older authors believed Demetrios II to have
Though excellent scholars, many made Indian conquests. But on their own the
representatives of this school are coins of Demetrios III are so utterly rare that
numismatists and coin-collectors rather than he could not possibly have made any
‘ordinary’ historians, and their conclusions conquests, and neither Demetrios II nor III
are often focused on the development of the could be said to have been close successors
coinage. Thus, their work has become of the first Demetrios.
somewhat isolated from that of the Such modern works are however absent
philological experts. from Seldeschlachts’ analysis: the
A good example of this is Erik Demetrios II he envisions is not matched
Seldeschlachts’ The end of the road for the with any of the numismatically established
Indo-Greeks? 3 which is mostly an attempt to kings and his critical reading of Strabo can
evaluate traces of Greek names in the extant therefore not be justified. Seldeschlachts
Indian sources. Seldeschlachts’ references finishes the same article with views on the
include very few recent numismatic articles, later Indo-Greek kings, none of whom were
though these deal with the same kings that he mentioned in the ancient sources, and
studies from another angle. For instance, proposes some chronological changes for
Seldeschlachts questions that Bactrian them, again as opposed to Simonetta’s now
conquests in India were made by Demetrios I, outdated work and only partially
son of Euthydemos I, as Strabo suggests (Geo acknowledging modern reconstructions. To
11.11.1), and instead favours Demetrios II, a take but one example, Simonetta placed the
suggested son of Demetrios I. king called Zoilos I between 110-105 BCE,
(The underlying reason for such and Seldeschlachts suggests 5-15 years
scepticism is the often heard objection that earlier. But he does so unaware that
Demetrios I never issued any Indian coins, overstrikes published in numismatic works
but to this author there is a difference years earlier6 have placed Zoilos I as a
between actual conquest and the long-term contemporary of the important king
administration of the conquered territories Menander I, hence before 130 BCE.
which is indicated by issuing coinage there. Seldeschlachts’ reconstructions here are
Alexander the Great undoubtedly invaded obviously outdated.
India, but he never struck any Indian coins, so It must be emphasised that this criticism
it seems plausible that Greek coining in India is directed against the general chasm
began only after Demetrios I had died).
4
Bopearachchi, 1991 & 1998.
5
Wilson, 2004.
3 6
Seldeschlachts, 2004. Senior, MacDonald, 1998, 14.
between philologists and numismatists, rather empire8, but Bactria and Sogdiana remained
than against Seldeschlachts’ paper, which is in Macedonian hands, where Seleukos I
in other respects an impressive work. But a added them to his empire around 300 BCE.
better integration between these two fields is Its Hellenistic colonists were probably more
necessary to understand the Indo-Greeks. Greek than Macedonian: Alexander placed
untrustworthy ethnically Greek soldiers
Methodology there, who were forcefully prevented from
This article will give a brief overview of marching home, and the Persian kings may
the history of the Bactrian kingdom and in previously have used Bactria as a Siberia-
some cases suggest new possible type exile for Greek subjects9.
reconstructions. The Indo-Greek kingdom Seleukos made Bactria the centre of a
(though the terms sometimes overlap) is vast satrapy; he and his successors
considered more briefly. Antiochos I and II struck coins in its capital
The method of the article is to study Bactra, but local power was naturally in the
whether recent advances make it possible to hands of a satrap. During the 240s BCE10
highlight more of Bactrian history, including such a satrap named Diodotos I made
the somewhat abandoned field of relations himself independent, probably due to the
between different rulers. A few conclusions decline of Seleucid power at this time. A
in the article are based on the design and disastrous dynastic conflict (the third Syrian
frequency of certain coins. The author is war) with Egypt had drained the empire of
aware that coins are inductive evidence and its strength, and Parthia also became
that new findings may appear to overthrow independent. Diodotos I was succeeded by
such conclusions, even though Bactrian coins his son Diodotos II, and perhaps an
have been systematically recorded for over a unknown third king, Antiochos, also
century. Therefore, such conclusions are used belonged to the dynasty, for on some
cautiously and only to support other Diodotid coins the legend reads ‘Basileos
indications. The article covers almost two Antiochou’.
centuries and is not encyclopaedic. Certain The usual view is that Diodotos I
periods, such as the nomad invasions of seceded gradually from the Seleucids, and
Bactria, are only briefly summarised to give therefore left the name Antiochos on his first
the framework. coinage while adding his own portrait11, but
References to monograms and coin Mark Passehl has made an interesting
legends are generally based on observation12. The reverse of the Diodotid
Bopearachchi’s catalogues7. silver coins features a thundering Zeus with
a separate small eagle – similar to the eagle
The founding of Greek Bactria on Ptolemaic coins. This might possibly
Bactria and the vast outbacks of
Sogdiana (the steppes of today’s Uzbekistan 8
Interaction between Greeks and India are known
etc.) were conquered by Alexander when he from the edicts of the Buddhist emperor
wiped out Persian resistance after the death of Asoka, so there was a Greek influence felt in
Darius III, before his conquests in the Punjab. India during the 3rd century BCE.
9
During the prolonged Diadoch wars after Narain, 1957, for the early history.
10
Alexander’s death (323-281 BCE), the Lerner, 1999, summarises the somewhat
contradictory ancient accounts. Dates range
Punjab, most of Pakistan and the Kabul
from ca. 255-239 BCE for Bactrian and
valley were lost to the Indian Maurya Parthian independence.
11
Holt, 1999.
12
Mark Passehl, Yahoo Hellenistica Group,
7
Bopearachchi, 1991 & 1998. 2005.
suggest that Diodotos I seceded abruptly Demetrios was said by Polybius to have
from the Seleucids and made an alliance with been a promising young man at the time, and
their arch-enemy the Ptolemies, probably Antiochos III offered him a Seleucid
around 246 BCE when Antiochos II died and princess, but it is unknown whether the
his son Seleukos II was shaken by the war marriage was ever realised. Around this
with Ptolemy III of Egypt. Ptolemy III time, the Bactrian kings ceased to strike gold
certainly invaded Seleucid territory as far as coins, and this was probably due to the
Babylonia, and has been said to have advance of nomads from the north, who
extended his power as far east as Bactria13. occupied Sogdiana while the Greeks fought
The Egyptian forces obviously never went among themselves, and cut off supplies of
there, but a recognition from Diodotos I may the precious metal.
explain why Ptolemy made the claim. If this
is true, it hardly makes sense to assume that The first conquests in India
the name Antiochos refers to a Seleucid king. Antiochos III gloriously finished his
Unfortunately, the portraits on the coinage of campaign in Alexander’s footsteps by
the Diodotids are not very personal, so they coercing an Indian ruler named Subhagasena
are of little help in deciding the king’s to give him even more war elephants, and
identity. The ‘Antiochos issues’ are discussed later won further victories in the west, but he
later in the article. was finally decisively defeated by the
The dynasty of Diodotos I was in its turn Romans at Magnesia in 190 BCE. After that,
dethroned by Euthydemos I, a Greek from Seleucid power never reached Bactria again.
Magnesia in Asia Minor, perhaps ca. 222 Bactria’s neighbour to the east was also
BCE14. Euthydemos is mentioned by weakening. Northern India had belonged to
Polybius (Hist., 11.34) in reference to the the Buddhist Maurya Empire, but during the
only serious effort to unite Alexander’s reign of Euthydemos this empire
fragmented empire: the so-called anabasis of disintegrated, and Euthydemos was able to
the Seleucid king Antiochos III. This expand south of the Hindu Kush (the Indian
Seleucid king had managed to pacify conquests discussed by Seldeschlachts).
Armenia and Parthia, and in 208 BCE his Demetrios I was a commander under his
armies marched into Bactria. He defeated the father15, but Euthydemos probably died
Bactrian cavalry at the river Arius in eastern before 195 BCE, for when Demetrios
Iran, but after a long siege of Bactra appeared on his first own coinage he was
Euthydemos ultimately managed to maintain still a relatively young man. Even so, he was
his independence in 206 BCE, in return for already depicted in the elephant-crown of
some concessions and a tribute of provisions Alexander, the symbol of the conquest of
and war elephants. Euthydemos’ son India, and on the reverse of his silver we
find Herakles crowning himself. Herakles
13
Van der Spek, 2004, discusses the Adoulis stele also appeared on the coins of his father and
where Ptolemy has recorded his conquests, and was obviously a patron deity of the dynasty.
a cuneiform tablet describing his conquest of There can be little reason to doubt that
Babylon. The connection between the rebellion Strabo was right to single out Demetrios I
of Diodotos I and Egypt is suggested by
Polyainos (VIII.50), who mentions how
15
Ptolemy III sent forged letters to Seleucid As proved by the dedication of Heliodotos, an
satraps to make them side with him in the third inscription mentioning the victorious
Syrian war. Demetrios with his father Euthydemos as the
14
Lerner, 1999, connects Euthydemos’ rebellion greatest of all kings. Cities beyond the Hindu
with that of the Seleucid governor Molon in Kush called Euthydemia and Demetrias also
Media, which happened around this time. testify to their importance. (MacDowall, 2005).
and Menander as the greatest conquerors (Str. secession of the Greeks in India under
Geo, 11.11.1), and since Menander was a Apollodotos I18.
later king who already ruled in the Punjab, Demetrios used four main monograms
we should credit Demetrios I for the for his silver, and three of these were used
conquests of Pushkalavati, Gandhara and by his closest successors, Euthydemos II,
Arachosia. Pantaleon and Agathokles. These three kings
This last province may have been taken are connected by their unique use of nickel
from the crumbling Seleucid Empire. As coins, an alloy used in ancient China but not
mentioned, we cannot demand coins from a in the west until modern times. The
conqueror, but it is peculiar that more coins experiment was abandoned with the death of
of Euthydemos I than of Demetrios I have Agathokles, the last of the three.
been found in these territories, according to Euthydemos II ruled in Bactria only and
MacDowall16, though he also proposes that struck a Herakles reverse only slightly
Demetrios I actually adapted the weights of different from that of Demetrios I. He is
his bronzes to Indian standards after his usually agreed to have been a son of
conquests. Demetrios I and is portrayed as a youth on
A possible explanation for the higher all his coins.
number of Euthydemos’ coins – at least as far Unlike other Bactrian kings, Pantaleon
as Arachosia goes – could be that struck very little silver: only a few pieces are
Euthydemos I had actually begun his known19. More numerous are his nickel
expansion before the attack of Antiochos III, coins and bronzes, some of which are
and was forced to withdraw temporarily after bilingual, clearly in imitation of the previous
their peace treaty. In that case Demetrios was coinage of the Punjab. These crude pieces
probably only able to reconquer Arachosia are irregular, with a more Indian than Greek
after 190 BCE. Nevertheless, Euthydemos I design: a dancing Indian goddess on one
seems to have been the architect behind the side and a lion on the other.
expansion, Demetrios its main accomplisher.

The turmoil after Demetrios I

Sources have not recorded the death of
Demetrios I, but he probably died around 185
18
BCE, for his coins are not that numerous and Since Demetrios I was a dynastic king he may
his last portraits show him only slightly aged. have wanted to include his father’s regnal
Though there is some uncertainty, it seems years in an era, and the Indo-Greek era was not
necessarily used in Bactria itself, since it does
possible that the so-called Indo-Greek era
not appear on the shortly mentioned tax
also began in 186/185 BCE. Bopearachchi 17 receipt. Known posthumous eras include the
has suggested that this era was inaugurated Pontic, Bithynian and Seleucid; the last named
by Demetrios I himself; this seems to be the was antedated to 312 BCE but began only after
best alternative unless the era was introduced Seleukos became king around 305 BCE. Just
posthumously. In that case, the year 186/185 like Seleukos, Apollodotos I may have founded
BCE may in fact be connected with a new kingdom, the Indo-Greek, a few years
Demetrios’ death and the subsequent 19
after 185 BCE.
See for instance Bopearachchi, 1991, (1
tetradrachm, 1 drachm, 1 obol) or 1998 (no
specimens). According to collector Tom
Mallon, (personal correspondence 2006), only
three tetradrachms had ever been found as far
16
MacDowall, 2005. as he knew. No specimens have appeared on
17
Bopearachchi, 2007. the large Internet resource Coinarchives.com.
 Table 1. Coins of Demetrios I and his successors.
Monograms numbered according to Bopearachchi, 1991.

King Approximate rule Important Bactrian coins Indian (Brahmi)

(BCE ) and age monograms coins

Demetrios I 200-185 (25-40) 5,62,63,109 Silver, bronze

Euthydemos II 185-180 (15-20) 5,62,109 Silver, bronze,
nickel
Pantaleon 185-180 (45-50) 5,109 Silver (rare), Bronze
bronze, nickel
Agathokles 180-170 (25-35) 5,62,109 Silver, bronze, Silver (rare), bronze
nickel
Antimachos I 180-165 (40-55) 62 Silver, bronze Bronze? (Indian
shape, monolingual
Greek)

Fig. 1. Bilingual bronze coin of Pantaleon. Courtesy of cngcoins, Triton V: 1677.

This was a little short of revolutionary companion of Dionysos, the wine-god who
contrast to all previous Hellenistic coinage. is said to have once been king of India!
From Italy to Afghanistan, the Greeks had These should be the very first Indo-
invariably reproduced coins featuring their Greek issues, and may give important and
Olympic mythology as well as their own overlooked clues about what happened after
alphabet and excellent craftsmanship. the death of Demetrios I. The fact that
Pantaleon thought very differently: he wished Demetrios I never struck nickel coins
to gain acceptance in India by adapting his suggests that Pantaleon came to power after
coinage to local customs. This humble his death, during the minority of
attitude was probably rooted in Pantaleon’s Euthydemos II. Young rulers were rare in
precarious position, since there were other Bactria, where the king’s position as
Greek kings during his reign. The symbolism commander was clearly important.
of his Indian coins is nevertheless elegantly Pantaleon was therefore possibly an
Hellenic: the lion is not only a reference to older relative of Euthydemos II and acted as
Pantaleon’s own name, but also the regent. This would be similar to how
Antigonos Doson of Macedonia became king
during the minority of Demetrios the Fair, or Five of these were definitely Bactrian kings:
how Antiochos IV Epiphanes acted as regent Diodotos I and II, Euthydemos I, Demetrios
for Antiochos, the younger son of his brother I and Pantaleon – actually all previous rulers
Seleukos IV. except Euthydemos II. If Agathokles had a
The exact arrangement is of course hand in the disappearance of Euthydemos II,
impossible to reconstruct, but possibly this explains why the young king was not
Euthydemos II was of superior rank and the included. Agathokles could hardly have
only one allowed to strike silver coinage, been an actual descendant of all five, but
which explains why Pantaleon issued mostly probably had marital connections as well,
bronze and nickel coins20. Some of these and the coins may also be seen as part of an
were, as mentioned, Indian, and perhaps attempt to found a ruler cult in Bactria, for
Pantaleon was formally installed as king of the kings were all given epithets.
the Indian conquests of Demetrios I, his Euthydemos I is for instance referred to as
capital in Taxila, where his Indian coins have Theos, ‘the God’, and Demetrios I as
been found21, but in reality acting as Aniketos, ‘the Invincible’.
commander for the Bactrian army and using Both Pantaleon and Agathokles used a
common Bactrian mints as well. reverse of Zeus carrying Hecate on their
But shared thrones inevitably encouraged silver, and since Zeus was used by Diodotos
power struggles. Not long after Antiochos IV I and II one may speculate whether they
had made himself co-regent and ‘protector’ of were descendants of that dynasty, even in a
his nephew, he got rid of his young protégé, male line. Euthydemos I claimed that he had
and presumably Pantaleon also fell out with wiped out the descendants of Diodotos I
Euthydemos II when the latter grew older and (Pol. Histories 11.34) when he came to
demanded his share of power. Euthydemos II power, but if his own family had married
died young and so was probably murdered, into that of the Diodotids, he may have
and Pantaleon may have proclaimed himself spared such children as were his own
sole ruler, which could account for his few relatives. Agathokles clearly saw no
silver coins. Pantaleon also vanished during difficulty in associating himself with both
this turmoil, but his position was inherited by dynasties at the same time.
Agathokles, who continued to use His final commemorative coins were of
Pantaleon’s coin types and was probably his Alexander the Great, obviously not one of
son or younger brother. Agathokles’ ancestors, and one ‘Antiochos
As seen from his coinage (Table 1) Nikator’ (Victor) with the same thundering
Agathokles ruled on both sides of the Hindu Zeus reverse as on the coins of the
Kush and succeeded both Euthydemos II and Diodotids. This issue is similar to the
Pantaleon. He has left behind seven types of aforementioned coinage of Basileus
remarkable commemorative coins of Antiochos, often seen as the earliest issues
extraordinary quality, where he copied the of Diodotos I. Accordingly, Antiochos
coinage of earlier kings with the additional Nikator is identified with Antiochos II23.
legend in the reign of Agathokles Dikaios22.

20
A very rare series of silver coins may be Kharosthi as Dhramika, ‘follower of the
explained as memorial coins issued by Dharma’. Perhaps the title had a Buddhist
Pantaleon (discussed later in the article). undertone even for Agathokles, who actually
21
MacDowall, 2005. issued some Buddhist bronzes with the legend
22
Dikaios means ‘the Just’, but for later Indo- in Brahmi only.
23
Greek kings the title was translated into Bopearachchi, 1991 & 1998, Holt, 1999.
Fig. 2. Attic silver coins of Demetrios I and Euthydemos II. The Herakles on Demetrios’ coins
crowns himself, probably a symbol of Demetrios’ conquests. Euthydemos’ Herakles is
crowned but holds a second crown in his hand, which may represent Euthydemos II as
giver of royal power to Pantaleon. Courtesy of Bopearachchi and cngcoins.com: Ex
Spink Numismatic Circular CIX.2 (April 2001).

But the title Nikator was never used by separate mints, but his reconstruction still
Antiochos I or II24 and these Seleucid kings contains some question marks. For instance,
could well have been commemorated with of the three most important monograms on
their own coins and portraits, as were all the Diodotid coins inherited by Euthydemos I –
other rulers. So possibly there was a third, an who dethroned the dynasty – only one was
unknown Diodotid king actually named actually used on coins with the name
Antiochos. In ‘Thundering Zeus’, Holt Diodotos, but all were used on Antiochos’
convincingly attributes different issues to two coins. In Holt’s reconstruction, this suggests
that these early ‘pseudo-Seleucid’ coins
were for some reason struck long after the
24
Antiochos III was, however, called Nikator, if Diodotids had become fully independent,
we are to believe the Byzantine scholar John of down to the last days of the dynasty. If we
Malalas (Chr., 8). Malalas’ account is filled instead assume that Diodotos II was
with errors, though the title Nikator appears in a succeeded by his relative Antiochos of
relatively correct paragraph. Rawlinson, 1912, Bactria, who was the king overthrown by
suggested that Antiochos Nikator was
Antiochos III, who, as mentioned, may have
Euthydemos I, the monogram succession
married his daughter to Demetrios I. However, might fit better. In addition, Holt
the commemorative series has nothing in distinguishes between younger and older
common with this king’s regular issues. portraits of Antiochos, and the three
monograms Euthydemos inherited can be As for Agathokles, he seems to have
found on issues with older portraits25. These been challenged by another king,
are remarkable coincidences if Antiochos was Antimachos I Theos. He was a middle-aged
not an actual person. man with a Mona Lisa smile, clad in the flat
Still, Holt’s analyses are very extensive Macedonian kausia hat, who used a unique
and these indications are not enough to refute reverse of Poseidon on his silver. It seems a
them. This author will go no further than to plausible background that Antimachos had
say that it currently does not seem impossible been a governor under Euthydemos II in
that Antiochos of Bactria existed. different territories from those held by
Apart from these seven types, there are Pantaleon. The best suggestions would be
unique ‘anonymous’ commemorative southern Afghanistan or Pakistan: some of
tetradrachms with similar inscriptions his coins have been found in Gedrosia
without royal titles of Diodotos I Soter, according to Tarn27, and possibly Poseidon
Euthydemos I (here referred to as Megas, ‘the could be an allusion to his rule over the
Great’) and the enigmatic Antiochos Nikator, coast or at least the Indus. He struck some
but without the issuer’s name on the reverse. irregular bronzes of Indian design, but not
Senior and Houghton26 believe that these bilingual, so he never ruled in India.
were issued by Euthydemos II, and Antimachos also struck commemorative
chronologically this seems impeccable, but in coins, but only of Euthydemos I and
accordance with the suggestion that Diodotos I. This difference (7:2) is very
Pantaleon was not allowed to strike his own important, for these coins were struck for
silver coinage they may be attributed to their propaganda value and the two kings
Pantaleon in an attempt to circumvent this clearly thought differently. The author’s
ban. To commemorate the three kings suggestion is that while Agathokles lavishly
mentioned, but not Demetrios I, would celebrated several earlier rulers, Antimachos
indeed be consistent with Pantaleon’s I chose the stricter strategy of
suggested ancestry, but with only three coins commemorating only his actual ancestors,
unearthed it is impossible to speculate about making each reference tell. For why else
the actual extent of the series. would he have allowed his own
Still, three extraordinary series: the commemorative series to be so clearly
nickel alloys, the first Indo-Greek bilinguals, outshone by Agathokles? If this is correct,
and the anonymous pedigree coins, appeared Antimachos I was a younger son of
during the period after Demetrios I. All three Euthydemos I, who had been married to a
may be explained through Pantaleon’s daughter of Diodotos I, as could well be
attempt to issue alternative coins that did not imagined. Antimachos I was then the most
mention Euthydemos II, his young rival and legitimate heir to Euthydemos II, whereas
formal superior. Agathokles and Pantaleon belonged to a
sideline.

25
Holt, 1999, 92, 104. Holt also states that the
style of Euthydemos’ first issues often
resembled the older Antiochos portraits. The
27
three monograms correspond to 40, 87 & 119 in Tarn, 1951, 94. Tarn actually came to a similar
Bopearachchi, 1991. conclusion about the ancestry of Antimachos I,
26
Already Rawlinson, 1912, mentions the but under entirely different circumstances.
Diodotos coin, which is found in Bopearachchi, Tarn held the fanciful view that all of these
1991. Senior & Houghton, 1999, give the rulers existed at the same time, as sub-kings
others. under Demetrios I.
Fig. 3. Some of Agathokles’ commemorative portraits. Pantaleon Soter (above left), Antiochos
Nikator (above right), Diodotos (II) Theos (below left) and Agathokles himself (below
right). Courtesy of Bopearachchi except Agathocles, courtesy of cngcoins.com, lot
76:939.

Antimachos I probably prevailed in this For India had, as mentioned, become

struggle with Agathokles. We do not know if independent under Apollodotos I, whose
Agathokles was already gone when heritage is unknown. Probably Apollodotos
Antimachos issued a uniquely preserved tax I was an ally of Antimachos I and revolted
receipt28 in the fourth year of his reign, with against Agathokles some time around 180
Eumenes and Antimachos as co-rulers. BCE. He issued a plentiful Indian coinage,
Eumenes should have been his older son, but though with the Kharosthi instead of the
he has left no coins, so obviously the boys Brahmi alphabet. The silver features cows
were not yet kings in their own right. Still, and elephants, well-known Indian cult
the younger son is probably identical with animals, but on his bronzes we find the first
that Antimachos II Nikephoros who would Hellenic deity in India: Apollo with his
later rule in the Indian dominions. tripod. Just like Pantaleon, Apollodotos
thought it clever to allude to his own name.

28
Rea, Senior and Hollis, 1994, and Nomismatika
Khronika 16/1997.
The rise of Eukratides
The time between 170-165 BCE29 saw title Basileus Megas, ‘Great King’. The
the emergence of Eukratides I, a warlike ruler reason for this was probably not his Indian
who was the last Bactrian king mentioned in conquests, even though all his Indian coins
Western sources. Eukratides was probably were struck after the change of epithets, but
not related to the Euthydemids, but his events in the west. In 164 BCE, the Seleucid
heritage will be discussed later. He seems to king Antiochos IV Epiphanes – infamous for
have killed Antimachos I and probably forced his involvement in the Jewish Maccabean
his younger son and namesake into Indian rebellion – died during a campaign in Persia.
exile, where he would eventually replace His death was followed by paralysing
Apollodotos I as king. dynastic conflicts, which slackened the
This is yet another complicated matter. Seleucid grip over Persia. Timarchos, a
Bopearachchi, 1991, originally placed governor of Epiphanes, rebelled in Media in
Antimachos II Nikephoros as the successor of 162 BCE, and he copied Eukratides’ coinage
Apollodotos I on numismatic grounds with a reverse of the Dioscuroi twins on
(Antimachos II shifts from square to round horseback, a portrait of the king in a helmet
silver drachms), so that he ruled ca. 160-155 with bull horns and the title Basileus Megas.
BCE. When the tax receipt emerged in 1996, Consequently, Eukratides had adopted
Bopearachchi adapted the chronology so that the title before 162 BCE32, which could be
Antimachos II and his father Antimachos I seen as a sign of his ambition to compete
ruled at the same time, 174-165 BCE with the powers in Persia after the death of
(Bopearachchi 1998). But the tax receipt Antiochos IV Epiphanes33. Contemporary
probably proves the opposite: since not even domestic kings in Iran thought along the
Eumenes, the older co-regent, had begun to same lines: not only did the Parthian ruler
strike coins when the receipt was issued, it Mithradates I assume the title, but also the
seems likely that Antimachos II was just a Median ruler Kamnaskires I. After all,
boy given royal titles and not yet ruler of ‘Great King’ was an Achaemenid title.
India. So Bopearachchi’s old chronology Eukratides’ ambitions made a clash
could be correct and there was a gap between with the expanding Parthian kingdom
father and son. Interesting new evidence inevitable and it seems as though he
about Antimachos II has recently appeared 30 overextended his resources. According to
and the issue is still not settled. Justin (Ep. XLI, 6) wars in all directions
The reign of Eukratides was the peak of depleted Bactria of its strength. Strabo (Geo
Bactrian power. He issued many coins, 11.11.2) claims that the Parthians defeated
among them a magnificent gold medal 31 (see Eukratides and deprived Bactria of its
Fig. 4), and conquered territories in India. westernmost provinces, and Eukratides also
After a few years, he assumed the ambitious seemed to have suffered from rebellions and
nomad incursions.

29
See Wilson and Assar, 2007, for an updated
32
discussion. Bopearachchi, 1998.
30 33
Clarysse and Thompson, 2007. This does not mean that Eukratides actually
31
His gold may either have come from a invaded Persia, though a few of his coins have
temporary reconquest of Sogdiana, or from been found in Susiana (Thompson, Mørkholm
campaigns, as suggested by Tarn, 1951. and Kraay, 1973).
 Fig. 4. The magnificent 169 g. gold medallion of Eukratides I, currently in the Cabinet
des Médailles de Paris. Wikipedia, public domain. Enlargement.

Eukratides’ conquests in India silver coins feature a reverse of Athena

His Indian coinage consists almost Alkidemos, standing with a thunderbolt in
entirely of bronzes, perhaps because his her hand, which would become the most
soldiers were Bactrians and demanded Attic widespread Indo-Greek type. The type was
silver to bring home (the coin standards were his own invention (or rather it was imported
still different in India). Some of the bronzes from Macedonia), but Menander began his
were posthumous nomad imitations34, and reign as a young man and was probably
since they are rarely found in the Punjab, related to earlier kings.
Eukratides probably controlled only the To study Eukratides’ inroads into India,
Indian territories adjacent to Bactria. For how it will be necessary to look closer at some
long is difficult to say. There seems to have coin monograms. In Bactria, monograms
been a good many of these bronzes, but the were usually Greek letters in artistic
scarcity of silver suggests that Eukratides arrangements, but their meaning is disputed
never found the time to consolidate his Indian and was probably variable. They are often
provinces. thought to refer to either city mints or to the
In the Punjab, Antimachos II had been initials of mint officials.
succeeded by Menander I, perhaps around Eukratides shared two monograms with
155 BCE, if we accept Bopearachchi’s old the Indian king Antimachos II and his
dating. Menander would eventually lead the successor Menander I. These were used only
second wave of Greek conquests in India and on Eukratides’ later coins, i.e. his Indian
even convert to Buddhism, but as a young issues and Bactrian coins struck after he
king he was threatened by his aggressive took the epithet Megas. This is often
Bactrian colleague. Most of Menander’s explained as Eukratides seizing

34
Bopearachchi, 1991.
Indian mint cities from Menander35, but the assume that the city was destroyed while he
matter may be more complicated than that. still ruled (and that all kings whose coins
have not been found there are later than
The two monograms ( and , 44 and Eukratides)37. A remaining stele gives the
182 in Bopearachchi’s catalogue) were date ‘year 24’ which might be taken to mean
seemingly not lost by Menander. Menander that the destruction occurred in the 24th year
let his coins undergo a series of transitions, of Eukratides’ reign. With his reign
which have been sorted chronologically by beginning around 170-165 BCE, this means
Bopearachchi36, but throughout these phases he ruled into the 140s, even if he died the
his officials stuck to these two monograms, same year.
which were at the same time used by The end of Eukratides I is related by
Eukratides to strike coins in Bactria. Justin (Ep. XLI, 6, translation by the Rev.
So the monograms were split between John Selby Watson, 1853):
the two kings, a puzzling conclusion. For lack Eukratides, however, carried on several
of a better explanation, we may be forced to wars with great spirit, and though much
believe that both kings claimed the symbols reduced by his losses in them, yet, when he
as their own. Perhaps Eukratides, who was was besieged by Demetrius king of the
pressured on several fronts, defeated Indians, with a garrison of only three
Antimachos II (who must have been his hundred soldiers, he repulsed, by continual
enemy), but was soon forced to withdraw sallies, a force of sixty thousand enemies.
from most of his conquests in India, and Having accordingly escaped, after a five
relocated mint equipment or personnel after months’ siege, he reduced India under his
the retreat. Antimachos’ successor, power. But as he was returning from the
Menander, may on his side have restored the country, he was killed on his march by his
original mints as a gesture of defiance. Both son, with whom he had shared his throne,
kings also struck similar spear-throwing and who was so far from concealing the
portraits, an aggressive sign of conquest. murder, that, as if he had killed an enemy,
Then again, there are examples that and not his father, he drove his chariot
monograms were first used in Bactria and through his blood, and ordered his body to
then ‘migrated’ into India. be cast out unburied.
Justin’s account is an abbreviation of
The case of Demetrios of India his source Pompeius Trogus, and is neither
Ai Khanoum was an important coherent nor concise. It describes the
Hellenistic city in northern Afghanistan, downfall not only of Eukratides, but also of
perhaps identical with Eukratides’ own the entire Bactrian kingdom. The passage
capital Eukratidia, which was suddenly razed has been interpreted in various ways, or
to the ground and abandoned. The last king even dismissed, but for all its faults it can
whose coins are found in the plentiful hoards perhaps be reconciled with the numismatic
unearthed in the ruins of Ai Khanoum seems evidence. Let us first reconstruct Justin’s
to have been Eukratides, so we should chronology in good faith.

35
Bopearachchi, 1998.
36
Menander introduced portraits on coins, a
practice that seems to have been unknown in
India. It has been speculated that Greek (and
later Roman) influence was behind the personal
portraits of Buddha – even that Siddharta’s face 37
Wilson, 2004. The excavations were led by Dr.
was modelled on the coins of Demetrios I! Paul Bernard.
 Eukratides’ conflict with the Indian king necessary. There are no known overstrikes
named Demetrios clearly occurred at the end for his coins, which are very scarce.
of Eukratides’ reign, as he had already carried Demetrios III struck silver coins with
on several wars. Against this, Wilson and portrait (sometimes in kausia) / standing
Assar38 have suggested that he may have Zeus with thunderbolt, and bronzes with
fought these wars as a general before he was portraits of the mentioned elephant crown /
king, but since Justin says that the wars thunderbolt with victory palms.
weakened Eukratides’ strength he should Bopearachchi dates Demetrios III to ca.
have fought them after coming to power. If 100 BCE and had, as already mentioned,
the passage is studied in reverse, we also see convincingly categorised the development of
that Justin places the murder of Eukratides the bilingual Indo-Greek coinage completed
just after his final Indian campaign. by Menander I. The legend arrangement on
Justin’s sensational description of the Menander’s final version of the coins was
siege could actually make sense (though the used by all later kings, including Demetrios
figure 300 against 60,000 men is certainly III. But this does not prove that Demetrios
exaggerated) interpreted as a heavily III ruled after Menander’s death, only after
truncated account of how Eukratides was the development of Menander’s coins was
initially defeated and besieged for five completed! Since this development took
months – and then rescued by other troops place approximately during the first decade
loyal to his dynasty, so that he could of Menander’s reign, Demetrios could well
overcome Demetrios. To survive such a have ruled soon after 150 BCE.
setback, Eukratides must have been an R. C. Senior places Demetrios III even
established ruler rather than a recent rebel later, around 70 BCE39. Like Bopearachchi,
and Justin has overlooked that Eukratides he points to the silver reverse of the king: a
already ruled in India. standing Zeus with thunderbolt, also used by
But who was ‘Demetrius, king of India’? an Indo-Greek king called Heliokles II. Even
Demetrios I was probably gone even before though the two numismatists date Demetrios
Eukratides came to power, and can certainly III a bit differently, both suggest Demetrios
be ruled out as his last opponent. The ruler III succeeded Heliokles II. But the Zeus
usually called Demetrios II was, as reverse was introduced in Bactria by the
mentioned, not an Indian king. There was king Heliokles I (ca. 145-130 BCE), so that
however a short-lived Indian king called is no certain proof. Senior analyses
Demetrios III Aniketos; he is a plausible
Demetrios III’s only monogram (No.
candidate for Eukratides’ adversary around
117) and suggests that this monogram was a
150 BCE, and we could even risk some
suggestions about who he was. late version of the common monogram
Demetrios III has long been overlooked. (No. 107) last used by Heliokles II, but since
Older scholars like Tarn thought the coins of the two monograms probably depict Greek
Demetrios III were Indian issues of initials, partial likeness could be a pure
Demetrios II or even Demetrios I: their coincidence. Even if not, there is no way of
epithets were the same, and Demetrios III knowing which monogram was the later
also imitated his famous namesake’s elephant version. Senior gives a final reason for his
crown. Modern numismatists have placed late date: that a drachm of Demetrios III was
Demetrios III much later than Eukratides I struck with square omicrons. Now,
but, as will be shown, this is perhaps not

38 39
Wilson and Assar, 2007. Senior and MacDowall, 1998, 39
 Fig. 5. A bronze of Demetrios III Aniketos. Wikipedia, public domain.

deformed Greek letters are often a sign that Menander’s immediate successors was a
Indo-Greek coins belong to a late period, but king called Lysias Aniketos, who also used
not only could such coins be posthumous the same elephant crown as well as the
imitations, there was great local variation. standing Herakles of Demetrios I, and
Senior mentions that the Indo-Greek king Lysias could well have been a son of
Nikias issued coins with similarly deformed Demetrios III. Other kings who used the
legends, but nevertheless dates Nikias to symbol of Herakles, among them Zoilos I 41
around 130 BCE. and Theophilos Dikaios, were probably real
So there seem to be no decisive associates of the dynasty as well. Perhaps
indications against Demetrios III ruling in the even Menander himself belonged to the
140s BCE – but at least one to support it. family, though his coins hardly indicate it.
Demetrios III struck bronzes with his portrait,
and this was done by only three other Indo- The last days of Bactria
Greek kings: Menander I, Eukratides I and [Arsakes and his follower] grew so
Nikias. Later kings abandoned the practice40. strong, always taking the neighboring
Demetrios III could therefore have been territory, through successes in warfare, that
their contemporary: his name and imagery finally they established themselves as lords
suggest that he was a Euthydemid. To be able of the whole of the country inside the
to challenge Eukratides I, he was probably Euphrates. And they also took a part of
supported by Menander I, and he rebelled in Bactriana, having forced the Scythians,
the areas close to the Hindu Kush, the
‘Indian’ territories held by Eukratides. 41
An interesting though unproven alternative
Justin’s epithet ‘king of the Indians’ does would be to connect Justin’s Demetrius with
indeed exaggerate Demetrios’ importance, Zoilos I, who was a contemporary of
but after Eukratides had defeated Demetrios Menander as proved by the previously
III he may have gone on to force Menander to mentioned overstrikes. Some issues of Zoilos
acknowledge his suzerainty, and therefore (Bopearachchi, 1991, series 4 & 5) were struck
Justin’s suggestion that Eukratides ‘reduced with a younger portrait, and featured the
monogram 44 used by Eukratides and
all of India’ may have some truth in it.
Menander, as well as the legend arrangement
If the Euthydemid dynasty had survived, used only on Eukratides’ Indian silver coins.
this is important for the understanding of (Zoilos’ other issues use the arrangement on
several later Indo-Greek kings. One of Menander’s later coins.) These issues fit in
well with a king who had taken over an Indian
mint of Eukratides, though this hypothesis
40
Possibly except Heliokles II. His bronzes feature requires that Justin somehow mixed up the
a bearded and diademed portrait which could be names ‘Zoilus’ and ‘Demetrius’, perhaps
the king as a personification of Zeus. because Zoilos was related to Demetrios I.
and still earlier Eukratides and his followers, east as India. Since there seems to be little
to yield to them… Parthian coinage found in Bactria, this may
(Str. Geo 11.9.2, translation W. Falconer, refer to Bactrian rulers becoming vassals to
1857). Mithradates.
The Indian campaign was Eukratides’ To return to the parricide son, we must
last triumph. The king was murdered by his assume that he was contested (and detested)
unnamed son and co-regent on his way to by other rulers, for there were several kings
Bactria, even though Justin’s sensational later than Eukratides. His identity has long
account of the dishonoring of his corpse been discussed, but the candidate can be
seems taken directly from the Iliad. After his determined with some certainty. As the co-
death the enfeebled Bactrian kingdom would regent of Eukratides I, this son was probably
descend into confused civil wars, until the in control of several of his father’s mints at
nomads swept away Greek rule around 130 the time of the murder. None of these kings
BCE. This date is given by the Chinese are mentioned in sources, and dates are
ambassador Zhang Qian42, who visited highly tentative.
(northern) Bactria, which was then in the A king with the extraordinary name
hands of tribes of Saka or Yüeh-chi origin43. Plato Epiphanes, ‘(God) manifest’, (ca. 145-
Some of these tribes were the Scythians, who 140 BCE, if Eukratides I died in 145 BCE)
Strabo refers to, but they were already resembles Eukratides I, but he used only a
Hellenised and ‘civilised’; the Greek single monogram (though sometimes with
irrigation systems and well-built cities were extra control marks)45 and looks middle-
mostly intact and greatly impressed the aged. Plato was perhaps Eukratides’ brother.
Chinese envoy. This was perhaps the only Heliokles I Dikaios (ca. 145-130 BCE)
known first-hand contact between China and perhaps also seems a bit too middle-aged,
the Hellenistic world. and though he shared around half a dozen
The nomads were not the only outside monograms with Eukratides I, he was the
power pressuring the last Bactrian kings. It is last Bactrian king, for the nomads imitated
noteworthy that none of Eukratides’ weak his issues in large numbers. The number of
successors struck a single Indian coin: monograms was heavily increased during
whatever territories Eukratides had held after the last period of Bactria, Heliokles using
his Indian wars were absorbed by either more than twenty. Perhaps some of these
Zoilos I or Menander I, who both struck some referred to mobile mints, when the urban
Attic tetradrachms for circulation in Bactria society collapsed during the wars. Heliokles’
to assert their interests there44. Justin (Ep. identity will be discussed later. Demetrios II
XLI, 6), as well as other ancient sources, also (ca. 140-135 BCE?), a young king whose
stress that Mithradates I of Parthia (ca. 165- coins were overstruck by Heliokles I46,
132 BCE) became master of the land as far issued coins with variable portrait and badly
struck flans. Probably his rule was unstable,
and he had to rely on makeshift mints. He
42
See for instance Narain, 1957. used standing Athena as his reverse, and
43
They were clearly different people, but the
details of the nomad migrations is beyond the
scope of this article. Saka and Scythian is
probably the same word (cf. Herodotos, Hist.
VII. 64). 45
This monogram, Bopearachchi’s No. 77, was
44
Small numbers of Attic tetradrachms were also used by Menander in India, but Plato’s
exported to Bactria by several later Indo-Greek coins were clearly Bactrian. Perhaps the two
kings, perhaps as tribute or payment for nomad were allied and shared a mint official?
46
mercenaries. Senior and MacDowall, 1998, 13.
Mark Passehl47 has therefore suggested that Parthians around 140 BCE, for Justin (Ep.
he was a relative and vassal of Menander. His XXXVI, 1) mentions that Bactrian
junior status would explain why he had no auxiliaries assisted the Seleucid king
epithet – on the tax receipt of Antimachos I, Demetrios II during his war with Parthia, a
only the leading king was allowed an epithet. campaign that ended in disaster when
Demetrios II did however share three Demetrios was taken prisoner and
monograms with Eukratides I and cannot be Mithradates I gained control over Babylonia.
excluded as the parricide son. So the Bactrian kingdom and the Seleucid
But the best candidate should be empire seem to have collapsed at the same
Eukratides II. From his name it seems time.
probable that he was indeed a son, and his
coinage also shared three monograms with Eukratides and Heliokles
Eukratides I. Eukratides II struck coins with a Heliokles I Dikaios, as mentioned the
reverse of standing Apollo and looks last important ruler, was a middle-aged man,
relatively young. At one point he exchanged with a face stern enough to match the
all his monograms and took the epithet Soter, miserable state of his kingdom. Like all
‘Saviour’, so his reign was probably other post-Eukratidian kings, he struck no
interrupted, perhaps 150-140 BCE and a short bronzes – the monetary economy seems to
return in the 130s. Apollo was the have collapsed49, so the only coins needed
eponymous deity of Apollodotos I of India, were silver to pay the army, or perhaps
also called Soter, and therefore we can tribute to ward off the nomads. Though we
deduce that Eukratides I had probably been cannot be certain whether there were still
married to a daughter of Apollodotos I – a not Greek enclaves in southern Bactria during
unexpected alliance between the only Greek Zhang Qian’s visit, Greek rule in Bactria
kingdoms in that part of the world. visibly ended with Heliokles I. The Bactrian
Finally the minor ruler Theophilos state was survived by the still flourishing
Autokrator (120s?) may actually belong to Indo-Greek kingdom, but more importantly
this period, perhaps as a younger son of still by the impact of its own eclectic
Eukratides I48, but the indications (apart from Hellenistic culture, with its profound effects
likeness of portraits) are so complicated that on society, art and religion in the centuries
they will be dealt with in another article. to come.
Suffice to say that Theophilos’ epithet, ‘self- But what is there to say about the
ruler’, could be a reference to Parthia, whose identity of Heliokles? The case is built on
founder, Arsakes I, declared his how we interpret a series of silver coins
independence from the Seleucids with that which feature on one side a couple named
title. Heliokles and Laodike, on the other a
Perhaps Theophilos, the last surviving portrait of Eukratides. Heliokles is obviously
son of Eukratides, tried to assert his not royal, whereas Laodike wears a diadem
independence against Parthian dominance. (but has no royal title). Two monograms
We know that the Bactrians fought with the (Bopearachchi’s 109 and 159) were used for
this series, none of which were used by
47
kings later than Eukratides I. These
Mark Passehl, Yahoo Hellenistica Group, 2005.
48
The Theophilos Autokrator coins are generally
referred to as Bactrian issues of the later Indo-
Greek king Theophilos Dikaios (Bopearachchi,
1991) but apart from the name the two have
little in common, so they were probably two
49
different kings (Jakobsson, 2007). Wilson, 2004.
Fig. 6. Tetradrachms of Laodike/Heliokles & Eukratides, and Heliokles I. Courtesy of
wildwinds.com and cngcoins.com, lot 67:1026.

coins are generally interpreted as Eukratides Eukratides, named after his grandfather.
commemorating his parents, and it has often This reading is ancient: in 1912, Rawlinson
been suggested that Laodike was a Seleucid mentions that it was suggested by 19th
princess, married to one Heliokles who had century scholar P. Gardner. Modern analysis
been a Seleucid official in the east. Hollis 50 has made short shrift with many older
explains a coin of this series like this: theories surrounding Bactrian genealogies,
The other extraordinary coin struck by and while this author is no expert on ancient
Eukratides, probably at the same time, was a Greek grammar, the reading may be seen as

on the coin to spell out the word  (son

silver tetradrachm commemorating his somewhat forced. There is plenty of room
parents. On the obverse side we see their

, and on
conjugate busts with the legend of), so why was it omitted? The names of
Heliokles and Laodike are in the genitive,

legend 
the reverse the king himself, helmeted with which is the case for all issuers of Greek

. Normally, of course, the

the coins. Further, these coins appear as
tetradrachms and drachms, whereas the
king’s name will appear in the genitive case; commemorative coins of Agathokles and
here there can be no doubt that we are meant Antimachos I were only issued as
to understand the complete inscription as
King Eukratides the Great, [son of] Heliocles
and Laodice.
51
On Agathokles’ commemorative coin for

Alexan
Based on this interpretation, the king Alexander the Great, the legend reads
Heliokles I has been seen as a son of
der (son) of Philip. And are there any
precedents at all when the obverse and
50
Hollis, 1996. reverse legends were read as one text?
tetradrachms. Memorial coins have usually may well have belonged to their branch of
been struck as large denominations, not petty the dynasty.
coins52
Conclusions
An alternative theory would be that these This article has argued that royal
coins were struck by Heliokles, a steward of epithets and deities were – at least to some
Eukratides, and Laodike, a princess related to extent – inherited, as was certainly often the
the Great King, just after the death of case in the western Hellenistic kingdoms. It
Eukratides I and using his name as a is not impossible that the identities of some
legitimation for their own rule. The couple kings, such as Heliokles I, Demetrios II,
may have acknowledged Mithradates I of Demetrios III or Theophilos Autokrator
Parthia as their sovereign, and opposed the could have been misunderstood, which has
parricide son until they were defeated, clouded our understanding of the royal
perhaps in connection with the destruction of Bactrian genealogies – and perhaps brought
Ai Khanoum53, which in this case happened that field to a seemingly dead end.
soon after the death of Eukratides I. Some Thanks to arduous studies of Bactrian
time later, Heliokles assumed the diadem and and Indian coins, it seems as though we are
became Heliokles I. finally able to suggest more credible
In that case Heliokles was not reconstructions of the dramatic history of the
necessarily a relative of Eukratides, but was Greeks in Bactria, despite the lack of
perhaps married to Eukratides’ sister or sources. Speculation still, perhaps, but better
daughter Laodike, or if Laodike was rooted in facts.
Eukratides’ queen, Heliokles was her brother
or father. We must assume that for matters of Acknowledgements
decency a Hellenistic princess could only be This article owes much to the input of Mark
portrayed alongside a man who was either her Passehl. Professor Bopearachchi has kindly
close relative or husband. The portraits on provided photographs and rare articles.
this so-called commemorative series are Thanks also to the staff of the ONS.
highly variable and of shifting quality, and so
provide no conclusive proof of whether the
two named Heliokles were the same person.
Many coins of Heliokles I could, as
mentioned, be posthumous, so we do not
know how young Heliokles I was when his
reign began.
The coins of Heliokles I do not, in fact,
resemble those of Eukratides I at all: the
Heliokles/Laodike coins are their only link.
Instead, Heliokles I issued coins resembling
those of Agathokles and Pantaleon, with
similar Zeus reverses (though without
Hecate), and using Agathokles’ epithet. He

52
Mark Passehl, Yahoo Hellenistica Group, 2005.
53
Two Heliokles/Laodike coins were found in Ai
Khanoum hoard III, Holt, 1981, and possibly
one of Eukratides II, (Wilson, 2004).
References
Bopearachchi, O., Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques, Bibliothèque Nationale,
Paris, 1991
Bopearachchi, O. (ed), Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The collection of the American
Numismatic Society, part 9: Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek coins, American
Numismatic Society, New York, 1998
Bopearachchi, O. “Some observations on the chronology of the early Kushans”, Des Indo-
Grecs aux Sassanides: Données pour l’Historie et la Géographie Historique, Res
Orientales vol XVII, 2007, 41-53
Clarysse, W. and Thompson, D. J., “Two Greek Texts on Skin from Hellenistic Bactria”
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159. 2007, 273-239
Hollis, A. S., “Laodice mother of Eukratides of Bactria”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik, 110, 1996, 161-164
Holt, F. L, “The Euthydemid Coinage of Bactria: Further Hoard Evidence from Ai Khanoum”
Revue Numismatique, 23 (1981), 7-44
Holt, F. L., Thundering Zeus, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999
Jakobsson, J., “Relations between the Indo-Greek kings after Menander part 1”, Journal of the
Oriental Numismatic Society, 191, 2007,25-27
Lerner, J. D., The impact of Seleucid decline on the eastern Iranian plateau: the foundations of
Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria, Steiner, Stuttgart, 1999
MacDowall, D. H., “The Role of Demetrius in Arachosia and the Kabul Valley”, in:
Afghanistan Ancien Carrefour Entre L'Est Et L'Ouest, Bopearachchi, O. (ed.), Musée
Archéologique Henri-Prades-Lattes, Brepols, 2005, 197-206
Narain, A. K., The Indo-Greeks, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1957
Rawlinson, H. G., Bactria, the history of a forgotten empire, Probsthain & Co, London, 1912
Rea, J. R., Senior, R. C. and Hollis, A. S., “A tax receipt from Hellenistic Bactria”, Zeitschrift
für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 104, 1994, 261-280
Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A., From Samarkhand to Sardis. A new approach to the Seleucid
empire, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1993
Seldeschlachts, E., “The end of the road for the Indo-Greeks?”, Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIX,
2004, 249-296
Senior, R. C. and MacDonald, D., The decline of the Indo-Greeks, Monographs of the Hellenic
Numismatic Society, Athens, 1998
Senior, R. C. and Houghton, A., “Two remarkable Bactrian coins”, Journal of the Oriental
Numismatic Society 159, 1999
Senior, R. C., “The Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian king sequences in the second and first
centuries BC”, Journal of the Oriental Numismatic Society 179 (2004), supplement
Van der Spek, B., “The Ptolemy III Chronicle (BCHP11)”, published online for Jona
Lendering’s Livius organisation, www.livius.org, 2004
Tarn, W. W., The Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1951
Thompson, M., Mørkholm, O. and Kraay, C. M. (eds), An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards,
American Numismatic Society, New York, 1973
Wilson, L. M., “Demetrios II of Bactria and hoards from Ai Khanoum”, Journal of the
Oriental Numismatic Society 180, 2004, 12-13
Wilson, L. M., and Assar, G. R. F., “Re-dating Eukratides I relative to Mithradates I”, Journal
of the Oriental Numismatic Society 191, 2007, 24-25