1840.] from Bactrian and Indo-Scythian coins, 7^7 



neighbourhood of Peshawur. Hence it follows, that Indo-Scy- 

 thia at that period, or rather a little earlier than Ptolemy, in- 

 cluded Peshawur, the country on both banks of the Indus from 

 Attock to its mouth, and Guzerat. The Punjab did not belong 

 to it, as the Kaspireans occupied this province, as well as the 

 country up to the Jumna and Vindhia,* neither did Barygaza. 

 The mountains to Arachosia, and the desert on the eastern bank 

 of the river form the other boundaries. 



It is therefore evident, that this empire is very small in pro- 

 portion to what Azes claims on his coins. 



We rather have in the limited extent above stated, a dissolv- 

 ed Indo- Scythian empire before us. The Periplus partly ex- 

 plains this decline of the Indo-Scythian power by mentioning 

 that the capital, Minnagar, was in the writer^s time in the pos- 

 session of the Parthians, and that both nations continually 

 expelled one the other. 



Let us now inquire into Parthian history, whether it yields 

 us some illustrations. 



From our examinations, above effected, of the relations of the 

 Parthians to the Scythians, it resulted, that since the arrival 

 of the Scythians in Bactria and Segistan, to the year 37 b, c. 

 no report shows that the Parthians had regained such ascen- 

 dancy over the Scythians as to rise against them as conquerors. 

 The same refers also to Artaban III. (died 41 a. d.), who more 

 than once must have had recourse to the Scythians in the north. 

 There is least of all any trace that Vonones I. during his short 

 and troubled reign, may have made the conquest in the east, 

 which we must ascribe to him, if the coins, above mentioned, 

 belonged to him. 



Of Bardanes (died 47) a successful campaign is mentioned 

 against the Dahes. What we know of his successor Gotarzes 

 (died 50) does not entitle us to attribute to him any new 

 aggrandisement of the Arsacidian empire. Then come we to 

 Vonones II. who reigned but a few months ; after him to his 

 son Volagases. His reign was a long and happy one,f and 



* I^^Xpi Ovivciov opovg and because Mo^ovpa ri tu)V Oswv 

 therefore Mathura belonged perhaps to the Kaspireans. 

 t 50 — 85, A. D. Visconti, Iconogr. III. p. 173. 



5d 



