Published as: “History of Greeks of the Ancient Indian North-West: Looking Ahead of Controversies to Major Issues”, in The Indian Historical Review, Special Issue on the theme ‘India and the Graeco-Roman World’, Vol. xxxii, No. 1, January 2005, ICHR, NewDelhi, March, 2005, pp. 1-34.

THE HISTORY OF GREEKS OF THE ANCIENT INDIAN NORTHWESTLOOKING AHEAD OF CONTROVERSIES TO MAJOR ISSUES

ABHAY KUMAR SINGH, PH.D.Head, Department of Ancient History and Culture,M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (U.P.) India

abhay1996@yahoo.com

It was the discovery of a gold tetradrachm issued by the king Eucratides, IIwith “standing Apollo” type”, that inspired Theodore S. Bayer to initiate the studyof the Greek rulers of the frontier lands of the Indian sub-continent. Bayer’s HistoriaRegni Graecorum Bactriani was published in 1738. The interest was aroused in this episodeof history due to the efforts of the amateur coin collectors, mostly the Britishadministrators and military officers.1 Charles Masson was then collecting the coinsin Afghanistan.2 The names mentioned in the coin-legends were those of sovereignswhose existence had until then only been recorded in ancient texts, thusconsiderably enhancing the credibility of classical authors. The first bilingualcoins were discovered at the beginning of the 19th century and were helpful to J.Prinsep (between 1834 to 1837) to begin the deciphering of Kharoshthi and Brahmialphabets.

The Birth of ControversiesIn 1884, the series of articles by Sir Alexander Cunningham were published in

form of a book, Coins of Alexander’s Successors in the East --- The Greeks of Bactriana, Ariana and India.This was followed by the publication of three museum catalogues : Catalogue of Coins in theBritish Museum : The Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India by P. Gardner in the year 1886;Coins of Ancient India. Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum by V.A.Smith in 1906; andR.B.Whitehead’s Catalogue of Coins in the Punjab Museum, Lahore in 1914. Following Cunningham,many attempts at the historical reconstruction basing on numismatic evidence werepublished viz., H. G. Rawlinson (1912), G. Macdonald and E. J. Rapson (1921), andfinally W. W. Tarn (1938 and again with addenda in 1951).3 Tarn’s The Greeks in Bactria andIndia was a pioneer work which at the same time gave birth to many controversies. Thedesire to reconstruct political history in all its dimensions and facets (likechronology, dynastic genealogy, territorial limits of kingdoms, exploits and eventsetc.), out of scanty source material was bound to lead to conclusions that werealways not acceptable. New finds also required revisions. Researches in the fieldcontinued with the discovery of coin hoards at Khisht Tepe near Qunduz in 1946 andat Mir Zakah in 1947 and were published respectively 4 by R. Curiel and G. Fussman(1965) and R. Curiel and D. Schlumberger (1953). In 1951, John Marshall publishedthe archaeological reports on Taxila, adding to the knowledge. G. K. Jenkins (1955)and other scholars made noteworthy contributions.5

The controversies concerning Indo Greek history was deepened when A. K.Narain, published his landmark book, The Indo Greeks6 in 1957. He had benefited from thediscovery of the publication of the Mir Zakah coin hoard (1953) and also of thediscovery of the Qunduz hoard of 1946 (though unpublished till 1965). Till then themajor source was ancient texts and coins. After a gap of six decades sinceWhitehead’s publication and coinciding with the studies of Fussman and Curiel, an

exhaustive catalogue entitled, Corpus of Indo-Greek Coins by A.N.Lahiri 7 was published in1965.

It was the archaeological work in Afghanistan since 1965, particularly theexcavations at Ai Khanum that gave another thrust to the subject. Between 1965 and1978, the French archaeologists excavated the ancient site of Ai Khanum and two coin-hoards (1970 and 1973) were unearthed. The former was published by Audouin andBernard (1973 & 1974) and the latter by C.Y. Petitot-Biehler (1975) and Paul Bernard(1975).8 A large corpus, the Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage was published by M.Mitchiner in 1975-76.9 Soon, A. K. Srivastava published the coin collection of theLucknow Museum.10 Over the last ten years, the untiring and almost legendary workdone by Osmund Bopearchchi in examining over 90,000 Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greekcoins, classifying and cataloguing them on scientific principles and interpretingtheir significance with extraordinary capability and scholarship, has infused newlife in the field of study. His contribution11 shall stand a major landmark forposterity. Besides, there have been occasional but important contributions from G.K.Jenkins,12 R.C. Senior,13 D. MacDonald,14 Joe Cribb15, K. W. Dobbins,16 D. W.MacDowall,17 to name a few.

Interestingly, though more than 250 years have elapsed since that discovery,the coins of the Greek kings still remain the major ---- if not the sole ---- sourceof their history. Archaeology (legal and clandestine) has only provided more andmore of numismatic evidence offering the opportunity to the numismatists to holdfull command over the historical reconstruction regarding the Greeks in India. Theconstraints and limitations in the archaeological work in unearthing down up to theIndo Greek stratum in the sites like Bhir Mound at Taxila, stands in sharp contrastwith the bountiful numismatic treasures18 surfacing at frequent intervals. No wonderthe credit goes to the numismatists for providing information about more than 40kings of Greek descent, while the epigraphic sources mentioned only 2 and theliterary sources, only 7 rulers.19

As we have noted, since the publication of the last major historicalreconstruction (by A.K. Narain), the archaeological discoveries, although limited tojust a few sites, have been well documented and the abundant numismatics finds havebeen scientifically catalogued. Historical commentaries have also been prepared. Nowit is expected of the historians to act. Historical writing is a fair game requiringfair play and fair approach. The roles of the historian and the numismatists areconsidered as different. It is time for the historians to lead.

The Tripartite TussleThe reconstruction of the genre of history like the episode of the Greeks of

Bactria and India has become a tug of war between the historian, the numismatist andthe theorist. Based largely upon a singular historical source (despite the fact thatthe coins are abundant) the historians could formulate fragile reconstructions only.The characteristics of the numismatic source make it dubious being open to differentinterpretations, leading to contradictory conclusions. Besides this problem, theimperfection, incompleteness and shortcomings in coin catalogues, presenting thenumismatics source material often contributes to confusion. 20 Also the historian isoften led away by his own choices and ‘ideology’ (“irrational motives”) and reachesa “conclusion” which according to M.J. Dhondt is a “synthetic realization”----atbest a hypothesis that is yet to be verified.21 Being victims of “categorico-deductive” approach22, the historians commit errors. Even among the historians“difference between conclusions lies in differences of interpretation of identicalsources.”23 The theorist prescribes methodological tools, both to the numismatist andthe historian, and expect them to write ‘problem-oriented history’ instead of the

‘narrative / factual history’. 24 History of Graeco-Indians is most suitable subjectfor the former category, because the latter type of history “tends to obscure theproblems”.

Ten year ago, while reviewing, Analysis of Reasoning in Archaeology : A Case of Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Numismatic by Olivier Guillaume, I felt excited and at the sametime, demolished in spirit. The two books by Tarn and Narain that I ever treasured(and still do treasure) were put to an acid test, “by no means to criticize thefield of Graeco-Bactrian numismatics, nor less any particular author, but to unveilthrough the writings of some, a number of discursive practices that are common toall,……practices which we do not all pay the same attention.”25 The object was “torecord irregularities and understand them better, so as to be able to correct themon the way….‘towards a logic of historical thought’.”26 About one-third of the wholetext is devoted to discuss the chains of reasoning and their shortcomings which hasalso been depicted with the help of 16 figures and tables. It is shown that “fromthe same set of facts or propositions, different conclusion were drawn by differentauthors, or even by the same author in different parts of his work.” 27

The most acknowledged historical compositions of W. W. Tarn and A. K. Narainwere taken as case studies by Olivier Guillaume and their architectures of reasoningwere evaluated by way of “Logicist analysis”. 28 Olivier Guillaume’s “goal” was toconsider these studies in Graeco-Bactrian numismatics “from the methodologicalviewpoint” rather than with respect to their substance. He chose the works of Tarnand Narain for his study, “precisely because they are fine representatives of theirdiscipline.” The analysis, which aims at throwing light on some mechanisms of thereasoning, termed as “numismatical reasonings” is taken up in the Part II of thebook in order to reveal how do historians reconstruct BIG (Bactrian-Indo-Greek)history on the basis of the coin evidence. The inventory comprises of the quantityof coins, their material or metal, coin-type or stylistic features, legends,monogram provenance and other variables. The two historians have derived differentopinions from the same source material. The “choices of interpretation” isquestioned. “There is univocal relationship between the significant (the type) and thesignifie (the idea) : the same significant can have several signifies which sometimes belongto semantic fields that are quite apart from each other….conversely, one signifie canhave several significants…”29 Guillaume has tried to show that “when presented out ofcontext …..most of these conclusions seem difficult to sustain from the outset.” 30

Stating historical facts as a linear story, as Tarn and Narain have chosen todo, compels the historian to establish continuity between facts. “And so, inattempting to link up all the facts into a linear narrative, one runs a great riskof reaching, at the end of the chain, a reconstitution which is but remotelyconnected with reality, as an error at the start of the chronology causes a chainreaction. For a history which is as incomplete and problematical as BIG history is,the literary form of the narrative is singularly inadequate.” 31 Narrative historytends to obscure the problems. It claims that it relates events as they happened, inthe order in which the happened. “When the history is as full of question marks, ofgaping black holes as BIG history is, the format of the linear story does not seemparticularly adequate.” 32 And finally, “as things stand at present, any progress inBIG historiography seems to us to be inevitably linked to the establishment oftypologies on the basis of the variables used by cataloguers in their descriptionsof coins. It is a safe bet that a fair number of hypotheses put forward byhistorians will then collapse. This would create, in our present ‘knowledge’, agreat void, ‘the void that the historian abhors’ as J. Stengers …writes.” That wouldinvolve ruthlessly eliminating not only what was imaginary but also all that wasuncertain; and that would be a progress. Guillaume believes that “BIG historiography

has, for the moment, modest aims. It is a history of ‘battles and treaties’ as itmay be defined by the Ecole des Annales.” 33

I sincerely wrote the review,34 appreciating the book (as I still do) and haveoften wondered that despite their most brilliant arguments and efforts, thehistorians could construct a delicate structure of history of the Graeco-Indians. Itrests upon some basic inferences. As long as there is an agreement upon theseinferences, there is no danger and all the new data can be suitably allotted to itssuitable place in the superstructure of the historical reconstruction. However, anydisagreement figuring at the basic inferences/premises threatens the entirecomposition. The handicaps of the subject have been well known to all. In spite ofthe challenges and the apprehensions of disarming criticism, scholars have venturedin writing the history of Greek rulers not for the sake of adventure, but inrecognition of the relevant fact that an enormous amount of influence was exerted onthe future course of history, by this episode of a comparatively small duration.

The studies on the Graeco-Bactrians/Graeco-Indians/Indo-Greeks have nowreached a level of maturity that necessitates a fresh discussion.35 In light of thestate of extant sources of the Indo Greek history, different possible historicalinterpretations, the shortcomings in methodologies and the lingering problems,certain controversies have come to the forefront and to dominate the discussions.The controversies revolve around the political history and it seems impossible toconclude in favour of one side or bring about an agreement with the other group ofhistorians, who possess equally strong arguments. Therefore, it is time to shiftthe focus of the discussions from controversies to major issues. Some basic issuesto be considered could be as mentioned here.

The Graeco-Indian Interaction Which was the most constructive period of the Graeco-Indian interaction? The Greeks knew about

India since the times of Herodotus. The early Greeks wrote a lot of fascinatingmaterial about India when the Achaemenid Empire established the contacts betweenIndians and Greeks.36 Indian literary sources dating back to the 5th century BCmention about the yona, yavananilipi, yavana that implies for the Ionian Greeks.37 Theinvasion by Alexander of Macedon was a later event. The contacts with the Seleucidsand Hellenistic world continued during the Mauryan Age. The Bactrian and Indo Greekswere the last in the order. The Indian interaction with the Greeks forms a multi-tiered structure with different peoples of the Greek stock.

The subtle difference among the Greeks from Ionia and the Greeks fromMacedonia or from Bactria had consequences of immense magnitude. Ionians weretraders or people in service of the Persian rulers and were like equals to theIndians of the northwest. To the Indians, the Macedonians were invaders, conquerorsand political rivals. In contrast, the Bactrians were settled people of the land whohad rebelled against and freed themselves of the Hellenistic connections.38 When theybecame rulers in the Indian sub-continent, they were de jure rulers, already havingadopted the land. They had shunned their foreign ways and arrogance in many ways. IfAlexander was Nicator (Conqueror), Agathocles was Dikaios (Just). They sympathised withthe local people. Menander became Milinda for the Buddhists.39 In like manner manyother fellow kings took Prakrit adaptations of their names and epithets.40 Althoughboth were envoys, the approach of Megasthenes differs from that of Heliodorus,because both belonged to different tribes and different times.41

Of all the different states of the Graeco-Indian interaction, the Macedoniancontact was the least impressive, totally ignored in the Indian texts.42 The Bactrianand Indo Greeks provided the most constructive interaction. It was the Greek

cultural influence and not the Greek political dominance that became significant andconstructive, which this phase witnessed.

The Mental Disposition of the Greeks of Bactria and IndiaIt is often believed that by virtue of their ancestry and antecedents, the

Greeks of the Indian borderlands were the same as the Greeks of theHellenic/Hellenistic world. They worshipped the gods of the Greek pantheon, tookGreek titles, wrote Greek language and believed in the Greek culture. They werefollowing the footsteps of Alexander the Great and in some cases a few commemorativecoins of Alexander were also issued. The unfulfilled ambition of Alexander toconquer India was further taken up by the kings of Greek descent like Demetrius,Apollodotus and Menander, who even attempted to conquer the Indian Madhyadesha43.However, there is a different opinion as well, about the truth of their expeditionsand success.

Narain, with his vast study and insight concluded that the Graeco-Indiansbelong to the Indian world where they finally got assimilated. But since he did notelaborate and summarily dismissed the other opinions and referring to the Greeks,tersely declared that “they came, they saw, but India conquered” 44, it gave rise toa hue and cry that has not subsided till now and has drawn him into a controversy ofIndo-centric bias.45

However, the issue is much bigger in importance. Any comprehensive studywould indicate that the Greeks were more influenced by the East then they influencedit. They were not wearing the shoes of Alexander the Great nor implementing hispolicies. Out of the numerous Greek kings of the land, not even one was named afterAlexander or Philip or Seleucos or Antiochus. In contrast, the names of kingsPhiloxenus and Polyxenus suggest something else. The spirit of the Greek rulers iswell explained by their adoption of the Prakrit versions of their names andepithets.46 Elsewhere, we have discussed in detail that it was the peculiar mentalreceptivity and adaptability of the Greeks of the Hellenistic Age, that they werethemselves contributing to their assimilation into the society and culture of theland to which they had arrived.47 In Indian context, the appreciative outlook of theGreeks is eloquent in all their actions. To understand the mental disposition theGreek of Bactria and India, therefore, is a major issue.

Yavana Identity ---- Nomenclature and NationalityIt has been objected that there have been two approaches of the historians in

writing about the Greek episode : Helleno-centric or Indo-centric.48 Both of theseare “ethno-centric” approaches, biased and lead to wrong judgements. The objectionsof Narain to Tarn’s propositons of treating it as a “lost chapter of Greek history”and declaring that “their history is the part of India and not of the Hellenisticstates…” has been made a moot point of the controversy.49 It must be remembered thatit was not Narain, but Whitehead who first used the name “Indo Greeks” for the Greekkings of India. Earlier, Rapson and MacDonald were referring them as “Yavana”,50 andin the opening few sentences of his book Narain has also followed the same usage.51

The matter of the identity (or so called nationality) of the people who livedin the past is equally important, as is the issue of addressing (or re-christening)them. Any people who form the subject matter for a historian need to be identifiedby a name. It is always appropriate to refer to them by the name they were referredas, in their own times, when they lived. But often the historians have erroneouslychristened the people forming the subject matter for their writings, on their ownliking or choice on basis of race or region. Such instance of “naïve anthropology”or the “spontaneous representation of the world” by a historian is rejected inmodern day theorist.52 Naming a people is at times considered as a device for

claiming the people, their glorious past and heritage. Sometimes for vainglory ormeeting political gains. The ethno-centric approach leads to prejudice, bias andlack of objectivity.

In context of the history of the Greek rulers in India, the works of Tarn andNarain have been put under scrutiny to point out partiality and ethnocentricapproach. “Tarn, the Englishman represented a moribund and an already nostalgicimperialism while Narain, the Indian personified in 1957 a freshly victoriousnationalism …… The title of the works are eloquent in this respect. The Greeks in Bactriaand India focuses the attention on Greeks whereas Narain’s title, The Indo Greeks leads usto predict a fusion between the two peoples (or an absorption of one by the other)with the advantage given to India named first…”.53 “Yet, Tarn writes (as it were) thehistory of ‘Basileos Agathokleous’ while Narain prefers the point of view of ‘rajaneagathuklayasa’.”54

Recently in 1987, Frank L. Holt has tried to provide another view about thenationality of the Greek colonists and settlers in Bactria. To him,“Agathocles/Agathuklayasa was indeed a man of two worlds, a Bactrian king on theborderlands between Greek and Indian culture. An additional Persian influence uponhis realm is evident in the Aramaic origins of Kharoshthi lettering, whileneighbouring China and Scythia certainly contributed to the complex mix ofcivilizations in his ancient homeland.”55 If King Agathocles was a “scion of east andwest”, a Bactrian king, his history is discreetly claimed to be a part of Bactrianstudies. In all cases it was, it is and it shall be a part of the history ofBactria, but it shall nevertheless be so limited and confined exclusively to thecountries of the Bactrian region. It shall be part of other histories as well, nomore and no less, who were connected and interacted with that land and its people.What is apprehended here and objected to, is another labelling on basis ofnationality and region.

Veteran scholar A.H. Dani, in 1988 while lecturing in a course in numismaticsin Pakistan, initiated the idea of naming the successors of Demetrios and Agathoclesas ‘Indus Greeks’. The monograph formed upon the basis of the lecture bears the sametitle and the entire chapter headings were accordingly altered to ‘Indus Greeks’.Writing some years later and reminiscing the fact, a Pakistani scholar Asma Ibrahimattempted to justify the change explaining that “in archaeological or historicaldiscussions particularly relating to the Hellenistic era, there is sometimes animportant need to differentiate Indus Greeks from Indo Greeks, to avoid thegeographical or territorial confusion of the two modern political entities ofPakistan and India.”56 She further puts this to numismatic reference. “Indus Greekcoins are those which originated or were found from the land which nearlycorresponds with almost the entire areas of the Indus basin from Swat, Kohistan tothe littorals of Sindh and Baluchistan. These are differentiated from the IndusBasin --- the areas of present Bharat/India.”57

The Pakistani viewpoint in the making is not mature enough and is grosslymistaken. The argument for preferring to name the rulers as Indus Greeks on thepresent politico-territorial considerations is childish. The same index is appliedto numismatic reference forgetting the well settled convention among the Bactrian-Indo-Greek numismatists that the twin classification of Graeco-Bactrian and IndoGreek coin variety is not based upon the criterion of the provenance of the coinsfinds, but on the criterion of certain well ascertained characteristics of thecoinage which includes the unilingual/bilingual legends, weight standard etc.58 Theproposal to classify the coins of some rulers as Indus Greek coins is unconvincingfor the lack of logical indicator. Searching for the rulers to be brought under the

preferred classification in order to ascribe them limited nationality is an exercisenot worthy for a true historian and professional numismatist. As on today, we areyet to conclusively decide whether the rulers to whom we put our preferred labelswere Macedonian, Ionian, Achaemenid Greeks, Thracians, Nyseans, Bactrians in theirancestry. At least, the antecedents of a few kings suggest of their mixed heredity;e.g., Telephos, the Autocrator;59 Artemidoros, son of Maues;60 and Nasten, son ofXatran.61

A re-look into the demographic conditions of the regions of the ancient Indiannorthwest, (to which the so-named Graeco-Bactrians/Indo-Greeks/Indus-Greekssucceeded) at the advent of Alexander, reveals that there was a sizeable populationof Greek descent already settled in Bactria for many centuries. “Bactria and Indiawere the ultima thule of the east and the outer limit for the legendary adventures ofHerakles, Prometheus…and Alexander.”62 Alexander encountered there, the Cariatas andBranchidae who claimed Greek descent but were bilingual and de-hellenised. Again, atNysa, Alexander had seen a settlement and its chief Acuphis explained that theirancestors had arrived there with Dionysus. Himself, Alexander settled at least eightto ten new settlements in Sogdiana only. Alexandria Eschate was a big settlementwith circuit walls of 60 stadia. In 329 BC, Antipater sent about 8000 mercenaries whowere unwelcome in Greece, to Alexander in Central Asia to be settled.63 In 323 BC,according to Diodorus, there were 23,000 unhappy settlers in eastern satrapies.64 Therumour of Alexander’s death caused an uprising of the Greeks colonized in Bactria,attempting to evacuate the region, led by Athenodorus. After Alexander, at leasttwice the newly settled Greeks tried to return to their homeland in Greece but werequelled by Piethon.65

Bactrian population were mixed peoples. When Alexander was returning from theland and leaving behind Cleitus there, the latter complained that he was been leftbehind among barbarians or chalepos.66 Intermarriage system initiated by Alexanderhimself by marrying Roxane, the daughter of Oxyartes in 327 BC, was a sure measureby which social assimilation in Bactria and the Indian northwest could happen. Whatthe writers in Greece opined about these settlers of Bactria are eloquent of thefact of the distancing between the former and the latter. Livy mentions that theywere considered as “sons of slaves and concubines”.67 It was this region that wasruled later by the Bactrian/Indo Greeks in question. Were they not separated fromtheir Macedonian and Seleucid influence (better, “nationality”) by generations?Their ancestors had severed connections with Greece continuously with the successfulrevolts under Diodotus, Euthydemus I and Eucratides I. We have no evidence of anyfresh arrivals from Greece nor any new colonizing effort after 323 BC, and thereforeit is safe to suggest that it was to the stock of Bactrian Greek population thatrulers like Sophytes, Vakhshuvar, Eucratides and Agathocles or Pantaleon belonged.The name Philoxenos explains in itself the beautiful attitude of the kings who werebilingual and syncretic in approach. They had learnt more from the Asian experience.They had lived nearer to the Persian Empire (which was politically united butculturally diverse) rather than to the Greece (which was politically divided butculturally united).

“Where did all the Greeks come from?” questioned Tarn years ago andimmediately conceded that it was difficult to answer.68 But his question was meantonly to connect the people to a nationality, i.e., Greek, and claim their history aspart of the history of the Hellenistic world. Narain responded to that with verymany convincing arguments.69 The same question should not be raised again. It shallbe appropriate to modify the question of Tarn as, “To where did the rulers belong ?” Quite naturally, to where they proclaimed to belong to; to the region theypreferred to govern and live. It is important to note that after they severed links

with the west, they did not govern the territory like the modern day “colony” ordependency. They lived there and were part of that country. Their adoption of theland is well attested in every manner.

Nationality is a modern concept. Citizenship is still newer and with a moredelimited scope. The Achaemenid Empire, which was multi-racial in populationincluded for sometime territories in Bactria and Gandhara on one hand and touchedthe Greek borders on the other. The Persians knew the Yawans (possibly the Greeksfrom Ionia) who were also serving in their armies. The same nomenclature came intothe Indian vocabulary, though slightly modified as yavana. They were neatlydiscriminated from the other peoples like the Pahlavas (Persians), Sakas(Scythians), Valhikas (Bactrians), Cinas (Chinese), Kambojas, Madras, and othertribes. The Buddhist text, Majjihmika Nikaya (II, 149) mentions about a Yona state thatflourished along with the Kamboja in the times of Buddha and Assalayana. Who theyavanas were had been answered by defining their peculiar characteristic nature (fastmoving)70 or achievements (especially in astrology)71 and never having any referenceto their racial or territorial belonging. Even in ascribing mythological ancestry tothe yavanas, the authors claimed them to be of kshatriya varna who lost their status dueto neglect of prescribed varna duties.72

Whether to identify some people of remote past as Indianised Greeks orHellenised Indians does not suit very much for a historian to do, except for anunnecessary nationalistic pride. Rapson addressed them as Yavana and so does Narainin the first few sentences of his work. It is submitted that a proper nomenclaturefor the people and the rulers could be Yona/Yavana only. In their own days, when theylived, the Greek descendants might have themselves differed in their views abouttheir being named. Possibly they preferred to be addressed as Yavana. In the caves ofthe Western Ghats many inscriptions of the “yavanas” have been deciphered.73 Ourstrongest clue is from Vidisha, where, in his famous pillar inscription,74

Heliodorus, the Taxilian inhabitant from the northwest, introduces himself as yona-dutena, i.e., the yavana envoy of King Antialcidas.

Reconstruction of History: Narrative or Problem-OrientedPolitical history that is often the backbone of historical writings concerns

mainly with three important factors: personality, chronology and territory.Controversies revolve around the royal identities, dynastic relationships,successions, territorial limits and chronology of events. In the present context,scholars have been and still are confronted with problems at each and every of theabove matters. There have been confusions regarding the identity of various kingsdue to the incidence of many homonymous rulers. Dynastic relationships and politicalconnections are yet to be fully settled. Deciding about the contemporariness of twoor more rulers and proposing the possible sequence of their successions is a majorissue. Numismatics attests to the existence of more than 40 different rulers in thedefined region, while the other sources know of just a few. They certainly livedafter the event of the Bactrian Revolt of 208/206 BC and also surely enough beforethe nomadic people (Yuehchi, Scythians) commenced reign around the turn of themillennium. The yavana kings needed to be accommodated in the historicalreconstruction within about 200 years of tenure beginning in 208 BC.75

The controversies relate mainly to the following:(a) Dynastic Links or genealogical connections(b) Identity of namesakes or homonymous kings(c) Territorial Divisions ruled or dominions(d) Polity and administration(e) Chronology and order of succession of kings

(f) Erosion of Greek kingdoms and the last king(g) Saka-Yavana relations

These points have been well debated among scholars and the controversies havegenerated out of such discussions. Tarn and Narain made adequate use the discussionsin their respective works. Guillaume has considered their books as the best specimenfor the logicist analysis. Given below in tabular format (Table 1) are all thesepoints compiled out of the various tables and figures presented in Guillaume’s book,which may reveal the major objections, the different opinions and inferences thatstrengthen the controversies and not the historical constructions:

Interpretation ofUndermentioned

variable:

Used by the historians in order todetermine:

Upon which the inference has beendrawn by

Tarn & Narainregarding

(i)Length of reign

(ii)Extension of the Kingdom

(iii) Kings action

Long reigns (Agathocleia,Pantaleon) and Short reigns(Plato, Peucalaus, Telephus Artemidorus).

Great (Apollodotus)Small (Plato)

Prosperous economy (Hippostratus, Hermaeus)

Long reign of (Heliocles)Short reign (Artemidorus, Peucaloaus).

xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

Material of coin(Remarkable on rarity)

use of Nickel for mintingcoins was caused by theinfluence received from Chinaby way of:

Commerce Conquest

Overstrike The cause of this overstrikingas:(i) Conquest

(ii) Shortage of metal

Eucratides over Apollodotus IAzes over Hippostratus

Azes over Apollodotus II

Maues onApollodotus

Eucratides overApollodotus I

Royal Portrait (i) King’s Age

(ii)Family links (genealogy)

Diodotus II, Menander, Heliocles

Antimachus I

Antimachus, Menander, Euthydemus I

Demetrius II resembles and

resembles Euthydemus I and so does Agathocles. Demetrius II does not resemble with“brothers” soleft out.

so is son of Antimachus

Coin Type (i)Dynastic Emblem

(ii)City emblem

(iii)Event commemorated/celebrated by issue

Zeus and pilie of Dioscuri as main typesof the family of Eucratides.Seated Herakles as regular type of EuthydemusI.

Taxila:elephant/pileiPushkalavati:zebuKapisa: Zeus

Antimachus I use of Poseidon typedenoting naval victory.Menander coinof the “wheel” type symbolised the “power ofthe chakravartin”.

Zeus as maintype of thefamily of Eucratides

Herakles as theusual type ofEuthydemus’ family

Disagrees

Antimachus I use of Poseidontype denoting protection of horses.Menander coin of the “wheel” type symbolisedthe Buddhist faith of the king.

Legend Language /Weight standard Palaeography

(i)Localization or GeographicalExtension of kingdom

Greek legend and Attic Standard denotes King usually ruled in the North of Hindukush e.g., Antialcidas.

Greek and Indian legendand Attic

Greek legend and Attic Standard denotes King usually ruled in the North ofHindukush e.g. kings later than Menander.

Greek and Indian legend and Indian Standard

Standard denotes King ruled in the south of Hindukush e.g., Apollodotus

denotes King ruled in the South of Hindukush e.g. Demetrius II.

Title / Epithet (i)An event or achievementcelebrated

‘Dikaios’epithet meantsimply”just”for Menander.

‘Epiphanes’for Platoshows claimto divinitybut also“childishvanity”.

“Aniketos”for Demetriusrefers tocrossing ofthe riverIndus.

Dikaios’epithet meantfor Menander,his connectionto Buddhism.‘Epiphanes’ forPlato shows himambitious andimpatient forhis father todie a naturaldeath.“Aniketos” forDemetriusrefers to theoccupation ofthe Kabulregion.

Monogram

Sharing in common the samemonogram means(i)Territorialsuccession/geographicalreference(ii)Temporal/DynasticSuccession

Monogram is the mark of the moneyer.If different kings have several monograms in common it is because they used the samemoneyers, which links them togetherchronologically and geographically.

Monogram standseither for a mint or a moneyer.

Coin Provenance (i)Territorial Limits of theKingdom

If the coinage is abundant and if coins havebeen found inmany areas, the king ruled over vast kingdom.Otherwise, noconclusion can be drawn

If in a given area the numberof coins of a king is greaterthan a “minimumthreshold” one can say that the he reigned over this area.Otherwise, if less than that minimum, the

if the coinage of the king is scarce.

king did not reign over thatarea.

Stylistic typology

(i)Dating of King(ii)Positioning of Kingdom

Inferiorquality ofcertainseries ofMenanderattributed tothe beliefthat thefarther theywere struckfrom Bactria,the poorerthe qualityof coin.

Dating of Platoand Archebiuson the unsaidtheory that themore beautifulthe coins , theolder they are.

Table 1 : Source, Problems and Controversies

(a) Dynastic connections: Coin-types and Pedigree coins:The attempts about setting dynastic connections was done on the basis of the

numismatic studies of Mac Donald and Rapson, who studied the coin-types of differentkings and proposed family relationships between them. Tarn identified four differentdynasties (those of Diodotus, Euthydemus, Eucratides and Menander) and proposed tolink them through marriages. He also attempted to connect two families with SeleucusII. Narain disputed the suggested links. He believed that besides Diodotus, theother houses were founded be Euthydemus I, Eucratides I, and Antimachus I (whoseson-in law Menander set up his own dynasty).

The methods of matchmaking by way of resemblances in royal portraits and cointypes and reconstruction of dynastic links is not very acceptable to some scholars,though it has been useful in early phases of research. The finding of resemblancesof facial features is misleading but the finding of facial dissimilarities of thedepicted king could be a useful method. The imitations done by the nomads can besorted out by the crudity and caricaturing of the faces.76 Links by way of findingthe common coin reverse types has been useful in presenting the most appealingchronology for the kings.77 Connections based on the deity are logical. Recently, therenowned numismatist, Osmund Bopearachchi has also acclaimed Menander for issuingthe Athena Alikademos coin reverse type that continued on the coinage of allsuccessors kings and has been a helping clue for the historical reconstruction.78

Pediree coins or the commemoratives are important in the establishing somesort of a moral or inspirational connection with the predecessor kings. It may notbe an exhibition of any real connection but more as a diplomatic move. It could be ameasure of seeking prestige for the regime of those considered as upstarts, anumismatic parallel of the mythical ancestry weaving of the Solar and Lunardynasties of early medieval India. The issue of pedigree coins is limited to just afew of the kings, like Agathocles, supposed to have reigned early.

(b) Territorial Limits: Taking cue from the quantity of coins, legend / language, coin type,

provenance and monograms of coins, the approximation of the territories of the kinghas been attempted. On the basis of abundant coinage Tarn proposed that Apollodotus

had a big kingdom.79 Greek legends and Attic standard has been taken to be theindication of reign over territory north of Hindukush (Antialcidas for Tarn and thesuccessors of Menander for Narain).80 The bilingual coinage for rule south ofHindukush (Tarn for Apollodotus, Demetrius II for Narain).81 The provenance of mostcoins is difficult to as certain, but Tarn suggests some solutions.82 The suggestionby Narain about ascertaining a “minimum threshold” of the coin quantity in order totake it into account to decide if the provenance can be treated as an indicator fordetermining the territorial limits of the kingdom,83 has been criticised. The recentattempts at the reconstructions have given much credence to the monograms to locatethe kings in different regions.

(c) Identity of Homonyms:The coinages of the yavana kings bear their names, titles and epithets,

effigies of themselves and deities besides the monogram and borders. Many coinsexcept for the same name (of the king) possess entirely different attributes. Suchhave been considered to be the issues of different personages who though namesakeslived time apart and ruled over different regions. So far we understand, about 20personalities lived who had another king of the same name. This amounts to nearlyone-half of the total number of the known kings. Lahiri gives the number as 11,while Fussman believes that there were only 2 namesakes. The followingrepresentation shall explain the present position:

Sl. The king’sname

Titles/Epithets Single royalpersonage

only

Different (i.e.,more than oneroyal) personages

1. Diodotus Soter/Soteros Two : Tarn, Narain 2. Euthydem

usTheos Two : von Sallet, Tarn,

Narain3. Demetriu

sAniketos/aparajita A.H.Dani Two : MacDonald, Tarn,

Narain, Dar.Three : Bopearchchi

4. Antimachus

Theos;Nikephoros/jayadhara

Two : Tarn , Narain,Bopearachchi

5. Apollodotus

Megalou; Philopator;Soter/Soteros/tratara

Narain Two: Tarn, Cunningham,Jenkins, MacDowall, Bernard, Petitot-Biehler,

6. Eucratides

Megas/Megalou/MahataSoter/Soteros

Cunningham, Trever

Two : Bayer, Rochette,MacDonald Tarn ,Narain

7. Heliocles

Dikaios/dhramika Tarn,Fussman,Mitchiner

Two:Narain, MacDonald, Bopearachchi

8. Menander Soter; DikaiosTratara/tradara;dhramika

Tarn,Narain

Two : Bopearachchi

9. Strato Soter; Dikaios;Epiphanes;Philopator;Tratarasa ; dhramika

Two:Tarn,Jenkins,Narain,BopearachchiThree: DarFour: Senior

10.

Zoilus Soter; Dikaios;Tratara/ tradara; dhramika

Two: Tarn, Narain,Bopearachchi

Table 2 : Homonymous kingsThe divergent view about the namesake kings is limited only to Demetrius,

Apollodotus, Menander and Heliocles. However, these very kings are the mostsignificant ones in the entire list. These are only kings about which we find

mention in the literary sources also. The historians disagreeing with the proposalof two or more kings with the same name as Demetrius, Apollodotus, Menander andHeliocles are either unwilling to share these kings’ respective achievements withtheir namesakes or wish to curtail the list of the kings. However, the numismatistshave sound arguments to support the other view. The issues that arise are important.Which one was the Demetrius whose military genius was acknowledged? Who was theApollodotus who was more famous and had issued abundant coinage? Which one of thetwo Menandrii became interested in Buddhism and is celebrated as Milinda in theMilindapanho? The issues need to be carefully settled.

(d) Chronology:The primary requirement was finding some “chronological markers” for the

skeletal framework of the reconstruction between the two ends of time.84 The literarysources could provide some additional markers. But most important of all, thecentral point has been the reign of Menander. The chronological pattern can berepresented as below:

Years Event Source Inference drawn208/206BC

Bactrian Revolt under Euthydemus’ leadership

Polybius

171/170BC

Coup d’etat by Eucratides

Circa 162BC

Timarchus imitates Eucratides’ Megas type coinage

Frank Holt Menander began to rulesome years ago, say in165 BC

Circa159-158BCCirca 155BC

Death of Eucratides Justin xli.6 . The literary evidence adduced by Tarn andNarain

Menander in throne in155 BC as per Narain .Tarn mentions that vonGutschmid Rochettesuggested that lastdate for Eucratides is155BC.

Circa 145BC

Destruction of Ai Khanum (West Bactria)

Archaeological evidence by Paul Bernard

Yuehchi arrive, driveaway successors ofEucratides I; they alsoimitate coins.

Circa 141BC

Nomads’ counterfeit. Nomads copy Heliocles coins

Curtain falls on Greekrule in Bactria

Circa 130BC

Desertion of Qunduzregion (EastBactria)

Discovery of twoMir Zakah Treasure deposits

Yuehchi drive away the successors of Helioclesout of Bactria into south of Hindukush; invaders issue imitations i.e., posthumous-Heliocles.

Table 3 : Chronological MarkersNumismatists have intelligently classified the kings by the finer

characteristics and attributes of their coinage into groups that may have livedclose to each other in time and space. Classification of kings into two groups, oneas successors of Menander and other as his predecessors has been determined. Forthe latter group, the overstrikes have served as conclusive evidence about the kingsbeing contemporaries or successors. The monogram progression, the reverse-type

similarities and coin-hoard study have been useful to construct tentative charts.Beyond these convincing and generally agreed upon fixed points of the chronologythere are no other clear indicators. Yet, the clues to the dates of majority of thekings remain a major issue to be settled.

(e) Successions: Overstrikes and Posthumous IssuesOverstrikes provide “truly incontrovertible evidence about sequence. An

overstrike takes place when a mint master striking coins for one king uses coinageof another. The perfect overstrike, for the numismatist, is the imperfect product ofhis handiwork because he has failed to obliterate the under type which is stillidentifiable…”.85 Among the abundant coinage there is clear evidence of twenty-nineover struck specimen. These are tabulated as follows :

S.No. Overstriker Undertype Metal Specimen1. Amyntas Heliocles II2. Antialkidas Lysias AR3. Apollodotos

IIMaues AE

4. Archebios Peukolaos AR 2 Coins5. Archebios Strato I AE6. Archebios ZoiIos I AE7. Artemidoros Hermaios/

Calliope8. Epander Philoxenos AE9. Epander Strato I AE10. Eucratides I Apollodotos AE11. Heliocles I Demetrios II AR12. Heliocles II Antialkidas AE13. Heliocles II Hermaios AE14. Heliocles II Philoxenos AE15. Heliocles II Strato+Agath

ocleiaAE 5 Coins

16. Heliocles II Strato I AE17. Menander I Zoilos I18. Strato I Lysias19. Zoilos II Apollodotos

IIAE 3 Coins

Table 4 : Overstrikers wise

“An overstrike demonstrates only that the overstriking ruler was either laterthan or in some degree contemporary with the overstruck ruler.”86 Some times, itsuggests some rivalry between the two.87 If a victory, however limited in territorialgains, the currency secured as war booty could be overstruck. We understand fromAmyntas’ high denomination that normally a tribute would consist of impressivecoins.88 In contrast, the war booty could be any size or variety that was looted andwas normally re-struck. Or could these coins be the treasures reaching the kingdomfrom other kingdoms by way of commerce? If so, overstriking would be a normalroutine work and not having any special significance can be inferred. It may thenhave nothing to reveal about the kind of relations between the two sovereigns.

Posthumous Issues89, which were creating much confusion in the chronologysetting of the kings have now been identified by the numismatists as coins imitatedby the unnamed successors and nomads and put out into circulation. Such imitationsof Hermaios, Eucratides and Heliocles have been found in large number. These kings

incidentally were the last ones of their dynasty to rule in different regions thatwere won by the nomad invaders.90 Would it then indicate that the posthumous coinswere indicative of the immediate successor’s mere defacto rule who preferred tocontinue the old symbols of power? Would it suggest that the victorious wereapprehensive that their own coinage will be rejected as enemy coins by the localpopulation who held the reins of commerce? The accession being equal to anusurpation and not being a legitimate succession, it was a practical measure toissue posthumous imitations rather than mint new series? If so, the coin would thenimply much more significance than being just a medium of exchange; it would mean areal bearer of recognition of authority and sovereignty.

(f) Monogram : Mint : Territory :The most puzzling question regarding the Indo-Greek coinage is the

interpretation of monograms. More than 550 were proposed and about 100 acceptednow.91 A. D. H. Bivar in light of a limited number of die-links proposed by H. L.Haughton, suggested that the monogram-forms that look remarkably like a homogenousseries were issued by the same mint.92 Then how many mints could have existed? Andnot even one mint has been discovered as yet. Bopearachchi is “inclined to thinkthat the variants may represent perhaps the signs adopted by different officinaeattached to the same mint.”93

“Every monogram used on Indo Greek and Indo Scythic coins could presumably beallocated a place of issue by the authorities of that time. In this sense eachmonogram is a mint monogram.”94 As most of the numismatists agree upon some sort ofconnection of the monogram with the mint. Monograms have been associated withTaxila, Paropamisadae, Charsadda, Gardez-Ghazni, West Punjab and East Panjab.95 Theproposition of Jenkins developed in establishing a link between the ‘monogram’ witha ‘mint situated in a particular region/ territory’. Taking away the constant ‘mint’from the equation, the historian in his mind establishes a direct connection betweena ‘monogram : territory’. The numismatists also see such a direct relationship andlinks between the ‘monogram : territory’ and treat the monogram almost as the emblemor a synonym for the specified territory. On the basis of considering the monogramto be a mint attribute, the apparent association is convincing, but only to theextent of identifying the situation of the mint in a particular region. But thesetting of spatial dimensions with the monograms is a risky argument. The monogramtruly provides some significant information, but a limit needs to be imposed to thedimensions of the inference.

For whom was the monogram meant: for the king or for the people? Todemonstrate what? If the monogram has a purpose, it should be both to establish theauthenticity of the coin and to distinguish it from the fake ones. Or was it meantto demonstrate the authority about the issuing of the coinage and to refrain anycounterfeiting efforts?

Monogram on the coins links it to the issuer king. The continuation of thesame monogram on the different issues of two or more kings, termed as “monogramprogression” puts the kings in reference into one classification. The kings areassociated and linked together and should be having some relations ----- as alliesor successors or foes. One takes over the monogram of the other, i.e., “monogramborrowing”, which could imply as “mint succession” i.e., overtaking the mint of theother. The inference can lead us to believe that the one king succeeded the other,not only in the mint, but also in throne and territory. If that may be oursupposition, it should be ascertained whether the overstrikes have the same ordifferent monograms? It seems that the discovered ones have different ones. If so,how can we assume a mint succession in that case? It may imply only a re-issue of

the enemy coin, if at all (or at best) due to a significant victory. In case of theoverstrikes with the same monograms on the host and striking dies, it would be clearthat mint succession or territorial succession is a necessary corollary. It may alsobe asked whether a successor king and particularly a victorious one, was obliged toadopt the monogram of the vanquished foe or the mint overtaken or the emblem of theterritory conquered? Would he not quash it and exchange it with his own normal mark?But the mint overtaking can only be concluded after the discovery of the mints inthe regions in question. Overstrikes or same monograms cannot prove territorialgains.

The provenance of the coins bearing same or similar monograms could bedifferent and far off from the place where the dies were designed, flans struck andcoins issued. From the monograms only, it cannot be correctly and finally inferredas for which territory were these coins issued and meant for circulation. Rather, alegend can tell more about it. Therefore, the relationship between ‘monogram :legend’ serves as a stronger clue than ‘monogram : territory’.

Senior wrote, “There is an overall impression that just two or three majormints were in operation, based in the largest cities, and that a few minor mints mayhave struck coins in more outlying area from time to time. ..The seeming plethora ofmonograms is due more than one officinae in a mint having the right to strike coinage.This area needs much more study.”96 According to A.D.H. Bivar, kings may have struckcoins when they were engaged in a military campaign.97 In this connection it isimportant to remind that overstrikes have been explained as coins struck in a hurryto pay off the soldiers.98 It is believed that the ‘Sigma’ monograms represent themint of Sagala, but in the Senior’s opinion they denote a travelling mint like theones that functioned in Parthia.99

The question of the ‘number and proportion of monograms : territorialauthority’ is pertinent. What could a numerous variety of monograms indicate? Lotsof officinae? Many mints? Many issues under many series? High political achievement andpower of the king? It has been on account of the large number of monograms thatMenander I has been credited with a vast kingdom. Whereas, if Menander claims thatcredit, it could primarily be on the basis of the large volume of his coinage, moreseries and coin variety. The question of equitable assessment of the volume of thecurrency between two kings was raised by Hollis who asked why Eucratides-I shouldnot be credited for a higher volume of currency in light of the fact that he mintedtetradrachms instead of drachms.100 What needs to be debated is whether any king withjust a few mints not issue a large quantity of coins or would he need a good numberof mints at every nook and corner and principal divisions of his empire? Thissupposed equations between monogram : mint location : territory : officinae : number ofseries : volume of currency, is required to be deeply studied. “Far more work needsto be done by taking those monograms which are common or rare for each ruler andoff-setting them against those of their contemporaries. This applies to their coppercoins too since often a monogram occurs only on those denominations.”101 The monogramcould have any explanation, but whatever may be the significance of this trait, isnot lessened.

(f) Last King, Last Ruler, Saka-Yavana Connection“The decline of Indo-Greek power and the rise of the Indo-Scythians took place

in the context of …. internecine warfare”102 wrote Senior. Some other scholars preferthe hypothesis that the Greeks were pushed out of Bactria by the nomad Yueh-chis butlater south of Hindukush they struggled under pressure from north and finallycontested the Indo-Scythians who fought them in West Panjab. The last Greekdescendant was fighting Ranjubula, who was attacking the Greeks from Mathura. Narainhad concluded that the last of the Greeks lived in Swat region.

The clue to the problem of the last struggle of the Greeks lies in ourconclusions about the Saka-Yavana relations. The relations among the later Indo-Greek kings and the Sakas like Azes, Azilises, Maues and others are significant. Arecent discovery of a coin103 suggesting that Artemidorus was a son of Maues wouldestablish close relations between the two different peoples. The ouster of the Greekdynasts from power shall not be evaluated from the perspective of conflict betweentwo different races. The conflicts regarding succession are usual matters of powerpolitics.

Any conclusion about the Yavana-Saka interaction will have great implications onour understanding of the social and cultural atmosphere of the ancient IndianNorthwest. The Nature of the Yavana Polity :

It has been opined by “the number of Indo-Greek kings whoruled simultaneously was greater than has been generally recognized. Someundoubtedly shared sovereignty co-operatively but others were deadly rivals.” Theunderstanding of the Yavana system of polity, their administrative organisation isincomplete at the moment. Whatever is known, suggests that it was quite differentfrom what had prevailed in the Hellenic and Hellenistic world. It was also differentfrom the Mauryan or the Achaemenid imperial systems. The system at Ai Khanum wasinfluenced from the Greek world, if we are guided by the discoveries of theacropolis, the so-called treasury, and the necropolis in that Bactrian city.However, from its beginings at Ai Khanum to the end in East Panjab, the polityappears to have witnessed an evolution. The Yavana polity appears to be a hybridsystem influenced greatly from the practises of the local tribes. The terrain of theregion makes inter-dependence as imperative for survival and the same fact waspossibly reflected in the Yavana polity. The matter needs more light.

Economy : Currency, Standard and ExchangeHow far can a coin go? What could be the territory within which an issued

coinage would be acceptable and circulated? Does it depend upon the metal, weightstandard or intrinsic value of the issue? If the Indo Greek kingdoms were smalldominions, did the monetary system allow the coins of neighbouring kingdoms tofreely circulate as legal tender in the dominion? How much was there a consciousnessto the sovereign’s authority associated with the coinage that may mean economicsovereignty? Can the coin hoards suggest that the value of the coins remained thesame despite the difference in time and place, i.e., whether they were old issues ofdifferent kings belonging to another kingdom than the present sovereign and thekingdom where the coin hoard was hidden? Was there any chance of their re-minting,and if was it a normal practise. How often necessary? Some kings insisted others didnot. Was there any exchange agreement or protocol between kingdoms? Was thecurrency periodically or regularly overstruck. Were there travelling mints andnumber of officinae (in the same proportion) to execute the minting task all over thekingdom. Can the number of series; the variations in monogram could be keys to this.Was the monogram associated with a region and the officinae, both? Does it alsoassociate as a secret code for the year of issue etc. What can the life of the coini.e., its erosion indicate, except for the circulation? If large number ofcirculated coins are found in a certain region possess the same monogram asassociated with that region would that indicate something significant. What if thosecoins are lower or higher denominations, or copper or silver. What region were theysupposed to circulate? Why was nickel introduced,and Indian standard, and else? Allthese questions need to be answered connectively.

CONCLUSIONControversies relating to the historical reconstructions of the Greek rule in

India have arisen largely due to the following two reasons:(1) The scholars focused attention to political history and little on social and

cultural aspects;(2) The dearth of literary sources regarding the episode of history.

The latter reason is substantially responsible for the former. Luckily, the majorsources (numismatic and archaeological) are worthy enough for the research. Thedearth of the literary texts cannot be helped but what needs to be done is tostrengthen the available material by complimenting them with collaborative material.Research in the periphery shall be useful for the reconstruction of the Yavanahistory.

It is a humble plea for providing a new perspective to the history of theGreeks of the Indian Northwest. The dimensions may include many more items relatingto the art, culture, society and life as well.

Notes and References

The author expresses his gratitude to Prof. U. P. Arora for providing opportunity and expert guidance and sincere thanks to Prof. O. Bopearachchi for having made suggestions and comments on the paper.

1. Mention must be made of the immensely valuable contribution of Col. James Tod,Charles Masson alias James Lewis, Gen. Ventura, Dr. Gerard, Alexander Burne,Capt. P.T.Cautley, Sir Alexander Cunningham, and James Prinsep. Between 1832and 1837, Masson collected about 60,000 copper coins from the plains ofBeghram. He estimated that nearly 15 million coins had been lost or destroyed.Year 1836 was dominated by Masson’s research. Elizabeth Errington,“Rediscovering the collections of Charles Masson” in Alram M., & Klimburg-Salter, D.E. (ed.) Coins, Art and Chronology. Essays on the Pre-Islamic history of the Indo-IranianBorderlands, Vienna, 1999, pp. 207-237. “With Masson providing the lead,Princep the dedication and Cunningham a few inspired guesses, they alsodeciphered the unknown script which accompanied the Greek legends.” Kejariwal,O.P., The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past, Delhi, 1958, pp 90; Also,175-8; 194; Keay, John, India Discovered, Collins, 1989, pp 88-9.

2. Till Masson’s discoveries only 9 Indo-Greek kings were known to history.Masson confirmed the existence of Menander, Apollodotus and Eucratides andalso added to the knowledge the names of Antialcidas, Agathocles, Pantaleon,Hermaeus (I, II, III, he supposed).

3. The Greeks in Bactria and India, (2nd. Edition, Cambridge 1951 and Indian Reprint,1980.

4. The Qunduz Hoard was found at a place called Khisht Tepe near Amu-darya, 90kms. From Qunduz in 1946. It comprised of 624 Graeco bactrian coins ( bearingGreek legend only) and three Seleucid. The Mir Zakah Hoard, found in 1947near Gardez contained 13083 coins out of which 2757 were Graecobactrian/Indo-Greek and the rest were 5837 Punch Marked and Bent-bar coins, 4456 were Indo-Scythic, Indo-Parthian and Kushana; 5 Greek coins and 28 illegible/uncertainones.

5. Curiel, R. and Schlumberger, D., “Le tresor de Mir Zakah pres de Gardez” inTresors monetaires d’Afghanistan, Memoire de la delegation archeologique francaise enAfgahnistan(MDAFA) xiv Paris, 1953, pp 67-100. Curiel, R., and Fussman, G., “Letresor monetaire de Qunduz”, MDAFA xx, Paris 1965. The summaries in English inGuillaume, O. (edited and compiled) Graeco-bactrian and Indian Coins from Afghanistan,Delhi, 1991; pp 6-7 (Mir Zakah) and pp 8-24 (Qunduz).

6. Narain, A.K., The Indo Greeks, (Delhi, 1980 ed.)

7. Lahiri, A.N., Corpus of Indo Greek Coins (Calcutta, 1965)8. Audoin, R., and Bernard, Paul, “Tresor de monnaies indiennes et indo-grecques

d’Ai Khanoum” parts I and II in Revue Numismatique, 1973, pp 238-89 and 1974, pp7-41, respectively. The summary in English is available in Guillaume, op.cit.,pp 25-79 and pp 80-116. Petitot-Biehler, Cl.Y., Tresor de monnaies grecques etGreco-bactriennes troouve a Ai Khanoum, Revue Numismatique, 1975, pp 23-57(English summary in Guilaume, op.cit., pp 117-153) and Bernard, P., Tresor demonnaies grecques et Greco-bactriennes trouve a Ai Khanoum, Revue Numismatique,1975, pp 58-69. (English summary in Guillaume, op.cit., pp 154-164).

9. Mitchiner, M., Indo Greek and Indo Scythian Coinage, 9 vols., London, 1975-76.10. Srivastava, A.K., Indo Greek Coins in the State Museum, Lucknow.11. Bopearachchi, O., Monnaies greco bactriennes et indogrecques. Catalogue raisonne.

Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris,1991 ( mostly referred as BN, 1991)and severalother important papers.

12. Jenkins, G.K., “Indo-Scythic Mints”, Journal of the Numismatic Society of India, xvii, pp1-26. Also, “The Apollodotus question: Another view”, JNSI, xx, pp 20-33.

13. Senior, R.C. and MacDonald, D., The Decline of the Indo Greeks : A reappraisal of thechronology from the time of Menander to that of Azes (Athens, 1998). Also, Senior, R.C. andMirza, S., “An Indo Greek Overstrike” in Newsletter, Oriental Numismatic Society, no.149, p.5.

14. MacDonald, D. “A Problematic Indo Greek Overstrike” Newsletter, Oriental NumismaticSociety, No. 150, 1996, p. 11.

15. Cribb. J., “Indo Scythian silver coins from Pakistan”, Coin Hoards, III, 1977,pp. 108-113.

16. Dobbins, K.W., “The question of the imitation Hermaios Coinage”, East and West,No. 20, 1970, pp. 307-326.

17. MacDowall, D.W., “The Hazarat hoard of Indo Greek silver drachms”, PakistanArchaeology, Karachi, 1991, pp 188-198.

18. For the list of recently discovered coin hoards, see, Bopearchchi, O., “Recent Discoveries: Hoards and finds of ancient coins from Afghanistan andPakistan”, Yavanika, Journal of the Indian Society for Greek and Roman Studies, No. 4, 1994,pp 3-30; for a summary in Bopearachchi, O., “Recent Coin Hoard Evidence onPre-Kushana Chronology” in Alram, M. and Klimburg-Salter, D. E., (ed) Coins, Art,and Chronology: Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, Vienna, 1999,pp 109-113. Also see, Bopearachchi, O. and Rahman, A.U., Pre-Kushana Coins inPakistan, Islamabad, 1995.

19. The known rulers were : Diodotus I and II, Euthydemus, Eucratides,Apollodotus, Menander, Antialcidas.

20. See, Guillaume, O. Analysis of Reasonings in Archaeology, Delhi, 1990, pp 15-60.21. ibid., p. 113.22. ibid. p. 112.23. ibid., p. 824. ibid., p. 78.and p.112.25. ibid., p. xiv, J. C. Gardin in the foreword. 26. ibid. xiv27. ibid. and also Fig. 31.28. ibid. ,xiv – xx. See, Gardin, J.C., Archaeological Constructs. An Aspect of Theoretical

Archaeology (Camb. 1980).29. ibid., p. 92.30. ibid. “Historians, if they are not to be condemned to silence, have to show

greater temerity.” See, p.6.31. ibid. 115.32. ibid. p. 78.33. ibid., 123 n.39.

34. Yavanika, Journal of the Indian Society for Greek and Roman Studies, No. 1., 1991, pp. 115-120.

35. The “traditional perspective of BIG studies (which until now almostexclusively centred on chronological problems),” may change, “by pointing tothe significance of the social and cultural reality of that period.”Guillaume, op.cit., p. 121, n.14.

36. Arora, U.P., Greeks on India: From Skylax to Aristoteles. (ISGARS Bareilly 1996) is acomprehensive study on the early Greek writings on India.

37. Narain, op.cit., pp. 1-2; Appendix I, pp 165-169.38. Holt, Frank L., Alexander the Great and Bactria, Leiden, 1993 refers to the native

Bactrians, pp. 25ff, 30-37;48;52-53;55-56; and their history. For the date andhistorical outline of the Sogdian Revolt, see, Bopearachchi, O., “TheEuthydemus imitation and the date of Sogdian Independence” in Silk Road, Art andArchaeology, 2, Kamakura, 1991-92, pp. 1-21.

39. See, Rhys Davids (transl.) Milindapanha in Sacred Books of the East, vol. xxxv andxxxvi. Also , Bopearachchi, O., “King Milinda’s Conversion to Buddhism – Factor Fiction”, Ancient Ceylon, vol 1, 1990, pp. 1-15.

40. For the table of the epithets, see, Srivastava, A.K., op.cit. and Dar, S.R.,Appendix A, in Dani, A.H. (ed.) Bactrian and Indus Greeks, Lahore, 1991, pp. 30-53.

41. Heliodorus inscription, picture, text and translation: Narain, op. cit., PlateVI. For the accounts of Megathenes, see, Arora, U.P. , “The Indika ofMegasthenes—An Appraisal” in ABORI, vol. Lxxii and lxxiii ( 1991-92) 1993, pp307-329.

42. Sinha, A. K., Time, Materialism and Historiography—Some Indo Hellenic Parallels (Delhi 2001)pp. 118-130

43. The expedition is supported by the evidence of the Yugpurana of the Gargi Samhita. See, Mitchiner, John, The Yuga Purana, Calcutta, 1986. For a latestevaluation, see. Singh A. K., Mauryan and Sungan Studies, Delhi, 1992.

44. Narain, op.cit., p. 11.45. For Narain’s reply, see, “Approaches and Perspectives” in Yavanika, Journal of the

Indian Society for Greek and Roman Studies, No. 2., 1992, pp. 5-34.46. Dar, S.R., in Dani, A. H. (ed.) op.cit., p. 49.47. Singh, A. K., “The Indo Greek Disposition” in Arora, U.P. (ed.) Graeco-Indica :

India's Cultural Contacts with the Greek World. Demetrios Galanos Memorial Volume, NewDelhi,1991, pp.179-91.

48. Holt, op.cit., pp. 3-5. Also see, Guillaume, O., “Naïve anthropology in thereconstruction of Indo-Greek history” in The Indian Economic and Social History Review,(IESHR) No. 27, 4, 1990, SAGE, New Delhi, pp. 476-477.

49. Holt, op.cit., p. 350. Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, 192251. Narain, A. K. , The Indo Greeks, Delhi, 1980 ed., pp. 1 and 11. 52. Guillaume, O., IESHR , 1990, p. 476.53. ibid., p. 47754. Holt, op.cit., p. 3.55. ibid.., p.2.56. Ibrahim, Asma, “Greek Rulers in the Land of Sind”, in Yavanika, No.3, 1993, p.

92.57. ibid. p. 100 n. 1. See also, Bopearachchi, O., “Recent Coin Hoard Evidence on

Pre-Kushana Chronology” in Alram, M. and Klimburg-Salter, D. E., (ed) Coins, Art,and Chronology: Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, Vienna, 1999,p. 71.

58. ‘Indo Greek Coins’ and ‘Graeco-Bactrian Coins’ are two different numismaticterms. The former possess bilingual legends, while the latter are unilingualcoins in Greek. For the difference, Bopearachchi, O. Monnaies Greco-bactriennes et

indo-grecques, Catalogue raisonne, B.N., Paris, 1991, p. 13. Senior also defines theconvention, see, Senior, op.cit., p. 26, n.20.

59. Bopearachchi, O., “Un Roi Indo-Grec:Telephe’ in Gazette Numismatique Suisse, SN, 39,156 (1989) pp. 88-94.

60. Senior and MacDonald, op.cit., pp. 55-56. 61. Bopearchchi, O., “Nasten, a hitherto unknown Iranian ruler in India”, Studies in

Silk Road Coins and Culture, Papers in the honour of Prof. Ikou Hirayama, Kamakura, 1997, pp.67-74.

62. Holt, op. cit., p. 34.63. ibid., pp 79-80.64. ibid. p. 81.; Diod. 18.7.2. Tarn differs, Tarn op.cit., p. 72.65. The revolts were raised in 323 BC under Philon. See, Holt, op. cit., p. 88.66. ibid. p. 82.67. Livy’s Tacitus. See, Singh A.K. in Arora U.P. (ed) Graeco Indica, referred above.

Cf. Holt, op.cit., p. 74, n. 100 quoting Curtius 7.5.29, explains that theBranchidae maintained their ancestral customs, but had already degeneratedfrom their native language and had become bilingual. Paul Bernard has alsowritten a lot about Branchidae. See, Bopearachchi, O. ‘Sophytes, the enigmaticruler of Central Asia’ in Nomismatika Khronika, 15, 1996, pp. 19-32. RegardingKambojas, see, Mishra, K.C., Tribes in the Mahabharata, Delhi, ; alsoBopearachchi, O., “Archaeological evidence on changing patternsof international trade relations of ancient Sri Lanka” in Bopearachchi, O.and Weerakkody, D.P.M., (ed) Origin, Evolution and Circulation of Foreign Coins in the IndianOcean, New Delhi, 1998, pp. 133-178.

68. Tarn, op. cit., pp. 69-7069. Narain, op.cit., pp. 10-1170. “..yavena gacchati ti yavanah” Also see, Vassiliades, “Traditional Views about the

origin of Yavanas” in Yavanika, No. 5, 1995, pp. 47 ff.71. Shastri, A.M., India as Seen in the Brihatsamhita of Varahmihira, New Delhi, 1969, p. 435.

for text, BS II.1472. See, Vassiliades., op.cit., p. 50.73. Shastri, A. M. “Yavanas in Western Indian Cave Inscriptions”, Yavanika, No.3,

1993, pp. 58-66.74. See above note 41.75. The date of the departure of Antiochus is 206 BC. See, Tarn, op.cit., p. 83. It

was under Antiochus II that Bactria became an independent kingdom. Towards themiddle of 3rd century BC, Diodotus revolted against the Seleucid master andestablished the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom.

76. Narain, op.cit., Plate III for the coin portrait of Strato. For a usefuldiscussion on Stratos’ coins, Bopearachchi, O., “Recent Coin Hoard Evidence onPre-Kushana Chronology” in Alram, M. and Klimburg-Salter, D. E., (ed) Coins, Art,and Chronology: Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, Vienna, 1999,pp127-129.

77. Bopearachchi, O. Monnaies Greco-bactriennes et indo-grecques, Catalogue raisonne, B.N.,Paris, 1991. And for the Reverse type depiction in a charted table form see,Dani, op. cit.

78. Bopearachchi, O. “Recent Coin Hoard Evidence on Pre-Kushana Chronology” inAlram, M. and Klimburg-Salter, D. E., (ed) Coins, Art, and Chronology: Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, Vienna, 1999, pp 120 for the significanceof Athena reverse type.

79. Tarn, op.cit., p.165. Apollodotus’ large kingdom “is attested in general termsby the wide diffusion of his abundant coinage; the range of find-spots,….andthe number of monograms on his money suggest that he coined money in otherplaces beside Pushkalavati and Taxila.”

80. ibid, p. 273; Narain op.cit., pp. 102-106.

81. Tarn, op.cit., p. 274, note 1; Narain, op.cit., p. 51.82. Tarn, Appendix, pp. 440-441.83. Guillaume, O., Analysis of Reasonings in Archaeology, Delhi, 1990, pp. 104-107., Narain

op.cit. pp. 104-107.84. Bopearachchi, O. “Recent Coin Hoard Evidence on Pre-Kushana Chronology” in

Alram, M. and Klimburg-Salter, D. E., (ed) Coins, Art, and Chronology: Essays on the pre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, Vienna, 1999, p 122. Also, Senior andMacDonald, op.cit., pp 31-45.

85. Senior and MacDonald, op. cit., p. 13.86. ibid.87. For instance, the coins of the Western Saka Kshatrap Nahapana was overstruck

by Satakarni king after defeating him. For belief in conquest as the cause ofoverstrike, see, Tarn, op.cit., pp. 215, 226, 271, 316, 349. (Eucratides, ZoilusII and Azes ). Narain believes this in case of Maues overstrike onApollodotus; Narain, op.cit., p.145.

88. Amyntas issued the largest Silver coin.89. Posthumous Hermaios, see, Senior and MacDonald, op. cit., pp. 46-52. For

imitations, see, Bopearachchi, O., op.cit., pp 114-115;n.61;129-130.90. The chronological and succession chart has been prepared by Osmund

Bopearachchi.91. Bopearachchi, O.,See, also, Tarn, op.cit., pp. 437ff. 92. Bopearachchi, O. “A New Approach to the History of the Greeks in India”,

Yavanika, Journal of the Indian Society for Greek and Roman Studies, No. 1,1991, p. 9.

93. ibid.94. Senior, op.cit., p. 2095. The monograms are charted by Bopearachchi. In BN96. Senior, op.cit., p. 21.97. Bivar, A.D.H., “The Bactra Coinage of Euthydemus and Demetrius “ in Numismatic

Chronicle, vol. Xi, No. xli, p. 34.98. ibid. p. 5699. Senior, op. cit., pp. 23-24. Table 5.100.101. Senior and MacDonald, op. cit., 23.102. ibid., 11.103. Senior and MacDonald, op. cit., 55.