Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c18.s1.59

c18.s1.59

King Azes I struck some coins bearing his own name in Greek on the obverse, and that of Azilises in *Kharoshṭhî* on the reverse.³ Then again we have another type of coins on which the name in Greek is Azilises, and in *Kharoshṭhî* is *Aya* (Azes). Drs. Bhandarkar and Smith postulate that these two joint types, when considered together, prove that Azilises, before his accession to independent power, was the subordinate colleague of an Azes, and that an Azes similarly was subsequently the subordinate colleague of Azilises. The two princes named Azes cannot, therefore, be identical, and they must be distinguished as Azes I and **Azes II**. Whitehead, however, observes that the silver coins of Azilises are better executed and earlier in style than those of Azes. The best didrachms of Azes compare unfavourably with the fine silver coins of Azilises with Zeus obverse and Dioskouroi reverse, and with other rare silver types of Azilises. If Azilises preceded Azes, then following Dr. Smith we must have Azilises I and Azilises II, instead of Azes I and Azes II. In conclusion Whitehead says that the differences in type and style between the abundant issues of Azes can be adequately explained by reasons of locality alone, operating through a long reign.¹ Marshall, however, points out that the stratification of coins at Taxila clearly proves the correctness of Smith's theory, according to which Azes I was succeeded by Azilises, and Azilises by Azes II.²