The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c26.286

v1.c26.286

Of the set of similar medals associated with the name of Antimachus, only two varieties have as yet come to light. They relate to Diodotus and to Euthydemus, and bear a strong general resemblance to the corresponding pieces issued by Agathocles. There are, indeed, only two points of difference: the mint-mark is new, and the reverse inscription reads ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΟΝΤΟΣ ΑΝΤΙΜΑΧΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ, ‘struck in the reign of Antimachus Theos.’ Except for certain coins of Eucratides, to be discussed presently, these are usually regarded as completing the commemorative group, so far as surviving specimens go. There is, however, one well-known tetradrachm which has hitherto passed as an ordinary coin, but which ought probably to be reckoned as belonging to the same class. The obverse displays a rather conventional head, unaccompanied by any legend, while the reverse has the type of Zeus, thundering, along with the inscription ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ (Pl. III, 9). This is the only evidence for the general belief that Diodotus received the title of ‘Saviour’ during his lifetime, and at the first glance it would appear to be sufficient. A closer scrutiny will suggest grave doubts. The coincidence of the reverse inscription with the obverse inscription used on the commemorative tetradrachms of Agathocles and Antimachus is remarkable, the omission of ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ being quite as noteworthy as the addition of ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ. The style and fabric, too, are out of harmony with those of the regular coinage of Diodotus. In particular, the dies are adjusted ↑↑, instead of ↑↓, as is the invariable custom in Bactria before the reign of Euthydemus I. Lastly, the mint-mark ⍟ is not found on the money either of Diodotus or of his immediate successor, whereas it is common on that of all the other kings whom we have had occasion to mention, Demetrius II and Antimachus alone excepted. Taking all these indications together, we can hardly escape the conclusion that the tetradrachm in question does not really belong to Diodotus, but is rather a commemorative piece issued, it may be, by Demetrius I. The mint-mark which it bears makes its earliest appearance on his ordinary coins, while the arrangement of the ends of the diadem is a strong argument against its being later.