The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c26.282

v1.c26.282

No argument is necessary to prove the existence of the other three kings belonging to the group. Their coins speak for themselves. To judge by the memorials of this kind which he has left, Agathocles must have been the most prominent. On his silver he appears with drapery round his shoulders and with both ends of his diadem hanging loosely down, the portrait being enclosed by a border of plain dots (Pl. III, 6). Like all the Bactrian kings we have so far met with, he introduced a characteristic type of his own. On the reverse of his tetradrachms is Zeus, standing to front, holding a figure of Hecate on his extended right hand and leaning with his left on a spear. That there must have been a very intimate connexion—chronological, personal, and local—between him and a second king, Pantaleon, will be evident from Pl. III, 7, which shows a tetradrachm struck by the latter. In general style the busts are closely related, while the reverse types are also the same, except that, on the silver of Pantaleon, Zeus is seated on a throne. In the case of the inferior metals the correspondence is even more complete. Nickel coins with Dionysiac types were struck by both, and their bronze pieces, round and square alike, are generally distinguishable only by the difference in the proper name. Lastly, on their square bronze money, intended for circulation in India and therefore bilingual, both use the Brāhmī script for the obverse legend, instead of the otherwise universal Kharoshṭhī. The portrait of the third king, Antimachus (Theos), is one of the most pronouncedly individual in the whole Bactrian series, largely because of the oddly modern-looking *kausia* which he wears (Pl. III, 8). The standing figure on the reverse of his silver coins is Poseidon, wreathed, and carrying in his left hand a palm-branch with a fillet attached, while his very rare bronze pieces have a figure of Victory. The appearance of Poseidon is remarkable and has been interpreted as referring to a successful naval engagement¹. It is difficult to account for it on any other hypothesis. But it is dangerous to fix on the Indus as the scene of the fighting, and to make this a ground for deductions as to the region in which Antimachus held sway. No square bilingual money with his name has come to light—unless, indeed, the coins usually attributed to Antimachus II are really the Indian coins of Antimachus Theos²—although it would be natural to expect an issue of the sort from a king who had ruled in the Indus valley. In this respect he contrasts markedly with Agathocles and Pantaleon, whose specifically Indian coins are very abundant. On the other hand he makes contact, so to say, with Agathocles through the medium of a highly interesting group of silver tetradrachms, which deserve somewhat careful notice.