408 Bactrian and Indo-Scythic Coins. [Ave. 
“Bayer, however, while he reinstates APoLLopoTuS, disputes his title to the 
kingdom of Bactria, which Col. Top again vindicates with reason. Bayer would 
make him one of those Greek kings who, at that epoch, reigned separately over a 
part of India, such as Demerrivs, son of Eutaypremus. This is in the first 
place contrary to the text of Trocus Pompetus : for the word eorum applies to 
Bactra et Sogdianos. The coin confirms this refutation, for by what motive 
should a Greek king, not having possession of Bactria, put a legend in Bactrian 
characters on the reverse of his coin? I call them so, without prejudice to the 
question of the language to which they may belong. Certainly they are not San- 
skrit: they have a strong resemblance to those on the early Sassanian medals. The 
credit of decyphering them is reserved for scholars acquainted with Zend and 
Pehlevi. 
“To escape from this objection, we must suppose that APOLLopDoTUS reigned in 
the eastern provinces of the ancient Persian empire, south of Bactria. The medal of 
Demetrius, son of Evtaypemus, discovered by the Baron MryeEnporr, bears a 
Greek legend BactAéws Anuhtpiov; the empire of India is designated by the skin 
of an elephant’s head with which the portrait of the prince is adorned. 
“¢ APOLLODOTUS therefore must be admitted among the kings of Bactria. The cele- 
brated Visconrt has endeavoured to assign his probable place in BayEr’s Chronolo- 
gical Canon of Six Kings, the dates of which are however mostly conjectural: he 
places him after EurnypEmvus’”’ (see p.315), “‘ and both the authorities quoted above 
agree in placing him before Menanper. Now MENANDER certainly reigned be-~ 
tween EurHyprEmus and Evcratipas; but Visconti will not allow the latter to 
follow MENANDER directly : he makes a place between their reigns for HELIOCLEs, 
whose name is only known from one medal bearing the inscription BaoiAéws 
“HAtoxAéous dSikaiov, and pronounced by Mronnet to be of Bactrian fabric, merely 
from analogy to other coins of the same locality—an argument by no means conclu- 
sive. When a coin of Hexioctes shall be discovered in India or Tartary, we may 
grant his title to the Bactrian throne.” 
‘¢Tt is difficult to assign the exact limits of the Indian dominions of the Bactrian 
monarchs, or of their contemporaries, who reigned in India itself. The ancients 
use the word India vaguely, and sometimes make it comprise the Persian provinces 
north-west of the Indus. The conquests of the Bactrians may have been made in 
two directions :—one, towards the east by the Panjab, and onwards ; the other, by 
following the course of the Indus. The expedition of S—ELEucus NicaTor was 
directed towards the Ganges; by his treaty with Cuanpracupta, king of the 
Prasii (people of the East), he gave up some provinces, and received a number 
of elephants in exchange. Itis probable that the first kings of Bactria, on declaring 
themselves independent, took possession of what remained of ALEXANDER’S con- 
quests in the Panjab.’ [Dr. SwiNEyY’s coins confirm their domination there, as far 
as the presence of medals can do so.) ‘At any rate, the third king, Eurtaypemus, 
in his treaty with ANTiocHus the Great, by which treaty his independence was 
acknowledged, gave up allhis elephants. This proves two points: first, that 
Evruypemus had provinces, or at least subjects in India proper ; second, that his 
rule was not extensive, for the elephants were few in number ; added to those given 
by SopHAGASENUS to ANTIOCHUS, they made but 150, whereas SELEUCUS re- 
ceived 400 from CHANDRAGUPTA. 
*‘ ANT1IOCHUS’ expedition was brilliant, but it procured him little solid advantage 
beyond the acquisition of these war elephants. After his compaign against EuTHYDE- 
