The Greeks in Bactria and India c28.37

c28.37

¹ In Chapter VIII reason is given for putting Maues’ death and Amyntas’ accession in the year 58. But, as that chapter presupposes and draws deductions from this Appendix, this Appendix has to be argued as though, as regards the dating of Telephus and Maues, those deductions did not yet exist; otherwise one would be arguing in a circle. But there is no need to repeat here what I have said in that chapter about the square omicron and the Chinese evidence; that could have come in either place. ² *CHI* pp. 560-1. ³ *CHI* p. 576; Herzfeld, *Sakastan* p. 101. ⁴ *CHI* p. 577; Herzfeld, *Sakastan* pp. 96-7. ⁵ Herzfeld, *Sakastan* pp. 97-8, made all three the same man. But the *same engraver on the same coin* could not use the two forms Azes and Azilises for the same man; also the stratification at Taxila, where the coins of Azes II have generally been found nearer the surface, is regarded by Marshall as conclusive for two kings named Azes; see *JRAS* 1914 p. 979, *ASI* 1929-30 p.