1836.] Memoir on the Ancient Coins of Beghrdm. 15 



As Demetrius did not succeed his father in Bactriana proper, and 

 reasons may be alledged for suspecting that Apollodotus also did not, 

 the question naturally arises, to whom are we to assign the empire of 

 Bactriana in the interval between the demise of Euthydemus and the 

 accession of Eucratides — a space of fourteen years according to the 

 table of Schlegel. I have mentioned the discovery of a parcel of 

 Bactrian drachmas and hemi- drachmas in the Hazdrehjdt, which we 

 purchased from a Hindu at Charrukar, who some three years since re- 

 ceived them from a Hazaureh. I have not yet been able to ascer- 

 tain the spot, or under what circumstances these coins were found. 

 The parcel, 120 in number, comprised seven quadrangular silver coins 

 of Apollodotus, 108 silver coins of Menander, and five silver coins 

 of Antimachus. The day preceding that on which this parcel of 

 coins came into my possession, I received from the dushts of Beghrdm, 

 a silver coin of the same last-named prince, Antimachus. The 

 beauty of the coins of Antimachus, the excellence of their execution 

 and designs, with the purity of the Greek characters of the legend, 

 allow us not to place this prince subsequent to Eucratides, whose 

 coins in these particulars they surpass. Among 5000 or more copper 

 coins, procured from the dasht of Beghrdm, we have not discover- 

 ed one of Antimachus, and the detection of a single silver coin does 

 not seem to afford evidence that he ruled there, when the absence of 

 his copper coins seem to prove that he did not. Where then must he 

 be placed ? We feel the inclination to conjecture him to have been the 

 son and successor of Euthydemus in Bactriana proper. The reverses 

 on the coins of Apollodotus and Menander are not strictly Bactrian, or 

 in relative connection with those we discover on those of the undoubted 

 kings of Bactriana, Euthydemus and Eucratides; the horseman in charge 

 on the reverses of those of Antimachus is so, and forms the link between 

 the horse at speed on the coins of Euthydemus, and the two horsemen 

 in charge on those of Eucratides. The monograms on the coins of 

 Antimachus coincide with some on the coins of Menander, and if we 

 can suppose them to be numerical ones (which however I affirm not to 

 be certain) suggest the opinion that they were cotemporaneous princes, 

 it being possible both were deduced from a common era. We feel 

 perplexed when we are only allowed by the table of Schlegel, an 

 interval of fourteen years, and when we have three princes who may 

 claim to have reigned between Euthydemus and Eucratides ; it may 

 however be suspected that the accession to sovereignty of the latter, 

 unless historically fixed, is antedated ten years. No one of the very many 

 coins of this prince we meet with, presents a monogram clearly nume- 

 rical, which yields a higher niimber than 85 ; while the highest number 



