No More Learning

Agathocles and Pantaleon certainly, and Antimachus possibly (v. sup. p. 404
and note), struck money of a distinctively Indian character; and the
Kharoshthi legend on certain copper coins of Agathocles has been supposed
to give him the title 'Lord of the Indians,' though this interpretation is
unfortunately doubtful'. Cunningham reports of the money of Agathocles
that 'single copper specimens have been found as far to the south as
Kandahar and Sistan, while they are common about Kabul and Begram. '
Of Pantaleon's coins he states that they ‘are found chiefly about Ghazni
and Kabul, but a few have been obtained about Peshawar and in the
Western Punjab. . . . . . Masson procured seven copper specimens at Begram. '
As for Antimachus, he says 'the position of Margiana accords best with the
actual find-spots of his coins,' and again 'they have been found in about
equal numbers in the Kabul valley and to the north of the Caucasus, while
two specimens have been obtained in the Punjab. '
Whatever may be the truth as to the territorial limits within which
they held sway, the simultaneous appearance of so many 'kings' is a
portent whose meaning is not to be mistaken. It is the first clear indica-
tion of that tendency towards the creation of petty principalities, which
1 Bühler, Vienna Oriental Journal, 1894, p. 206. 2. Num. Chron. , 1869, pp. 38, 40 f.


## p. 407 (#445) ############################################

XVII)
HELIOCLES AND LAODICE
407
>
1
>
once
subsequently became so marked a feature of the final phase of Greek rule
in India. In the present instance the 'kings' would seem to have been
pawns in a game which was really being played by stronger and more
powerful personalities. They were obviously intent on upholding the
banner of Demetrius and his dynasty, whose claim to the Bactrian crown
the commemorative coins represent as derived directly from Alexander
the Great, heedless of the violent breaks that had marked the accession
first of Diodotus and then of Euthydemus. Nor is there any doubt as to
the rival against whom their manifestos were aimed. It must have been
Eucratides. It would be interesting if we could discover the foundation
on which the usurper based his claims. Perhaps the quest is not entirely
hopeless. Certain of his tetradrachms and drachms are by common
consent regarded as commemorative, The obsvere-generally, but not
accurately, described as the reverse - bears a male and female head, jugate,
to the right, the inscription being ΗΛΙΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΗΣ,
while the reverse has one of the ordinary helmeted busts of Eucratides,
accompanied by the legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΜΕΓΑΣ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΗΣ (PI.
IV, 3), The close analogy between this obverse and the obverses of the
commemorative tetradrachms of Agathocles and Antimachus at
suggests that the appeal to the memory of Heliocles and Laodice is the
counterpart of that to the memory of 'Alexander, Philip's son,' 'Antiochus
the Conqueror,' 'Diodotus the Saviour,' and 'Euthydemus the Divine'.
And when the obverse is given its proper position, the parallel is seen to
be much closer than has hitherto been supposed. It naturally does not
extend to the reverse, for Heliocles and Laodice had struck no money, and
had therefore left to characteristic coin-type for their kinsman to copy. In
the circumstances he utilised his own portrait, At the same time he was
careful to differentiate his commemorative pieces from his other issues by
putting his own name in the nominative instead of in the genitive,
very much in the spirit in which Agathocles and Antimachus employed
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΟΝΤΟΣ in place of the normal ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ.
Although there is no difference of opinion as to the commemorative
character of these coins, an acute cleavage manifests itself the moment
the problem of identification is approached. Perhaps the view most widely
held is that Heliocles is the son and successor of Eucratides, and that the
coins were struck to commemorate his marriage with Laodice, a daughter
of Demetrius by the Seleucid princess to whom he was betrothed in 206
during the negotiations with Antiochus III. This theory-first propounded
by von Sallet, although it had previously been hinted at by Droysen - has
about it a certain plausibility that has commended it to historians : it would
have been a politic step on the part of Eucratides to try and conciliate
opposition, after his victory, by arranging a match between his son and a
daughter of the fallen house. But, in the light of the considerations urged


## p. 408 (#446) ############################################

408
[ch.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
in the foregoing paragraph, there need be no hesitation in setting it aside
as inadmissible. There is very much more to be said for the alternative
suggestion, advocated by Cunningham and by Gardner, that Heliocles was
the father of Eucratides, and that Laodice was his mother. We need not,
however, follow some of those who have accepted this solution, and
continue to assume that Laodice was the daughter of Demetrius an assump-
tion which leads to the impossible conclusion that Eucratides was his
great rival's grandson. Laodice was, indeed, a common name in the royal
house of Syria, but there is no evidence to prove that it was the name of
the bride of Demetrius, or of any of her children. The field of conjecture
is absolutely open. One point should not be overlooked before we enter
it. While Heliocles is represented with his head bare, Laodice wears a
diadem, showing that she was of the lineage of kings, a princess in her
own right. It must, therefore, have been from her, and not from his
father, that any title Eucratides could advance to the Bactrian erown had
come. It may also be recalled that Antiochus Epiphanes, who now sat
upon the throne of Syria (175-164) in succession to his brother Seleucus
IV (187-175), is known to have cherished the dream of re-establishing the
Seleucid influence in Central Asia, as if to redress in the east the balance
that had been lost in the west to Rome. Possibly it was in his interest
and with his encouragement that Eucratides first raised the standard of
revolt. That, of course, is pure speculation just, as are all the other hy.
potheses that have so far been put foward. But it would explain his appeal
to the memory of a Seleucid princess, as well as the otherwise puzzling in-
troduction into the Bactrian coinage of that characteristically Seleucid
ornament, the bead-and-reel border.
In speaking of Demetrius, something has already been said of the
troubles that beset Eucratides during the earlier portion of his reign.
According to Justin (XLI, 6), he had much ado to hold his own, not merely
against Demetrius, but also against 'the Sogdiani'. The meaning of the
latter reference is obscure. Possibly Sogdiāna strove hard to maintain its
loyalty to Demetrius rather than submit to the upstart who had presumed
to supplant him. More probably the northern tribes took advantage of the
absence of Demetrius in India and wrested from Hellenic rule the whole
of the country to the north of the Oxus. We find them in full possession of
Bactria itself, before many years have elapsed. The Parthians, too, were a
grievous thorn in the flesh of Eucratides. They fell upon his flank when his
energies were exhausted by the various other wars in which he had been
forced to engage, with the result that part of the Bactrian kingdom was
permanently absorbed in their empire. We shall have occasion presently to
try and measure the extent of this success. Meanwhile it will be convenient
to follow Eucratides in his pursuit of Demetrius into India. His victory
there was complete in the ancient Indian provinces of the Persian empire.


## p. 409 (#447) ############################################

XVII]
EUCRATIDES
409
As it is put by Justin (loc. cit. ), 'he reduced India'– that is to
say,
the
country of the Indus-'to subjection,' Strabo (xv, 686) says he made
himself master of 'a thousand cities. The princes of the house of
Euthydemus had now to be content with the eastern districts of the Punjab.
But Eucratides did not enjoy his triumph long. While he was on the march
homewards towards Bactria, where he had founded a great city to which he
gave the name of Eucratidia, he was attacked and murdered by his son,
whom he had trusted so implicitly that he had made him a colleague in the
kingship. The details added by Justin (loc. cit. ) as to the callous conduct
of the murderer in driving his chariot through his father's blood have a
suspicious resemblance to the story Livy (1, 48) tells as to the death of
Servius Tullius. It would have been more to the purpose if he had men-
tioned the parricide's name. The date of the incident is quite uncertain,
but it is usually given as c. 155 B. C.
The coinage of Eucratides bears ample witness to the prosperity that
attended him during his life. His money is even more abundant than that
of Euthydemus. Although examples of his gold are exceedingly uncommon,
they include one specimen which weighs as much as 2593. 5 grains ( 168:05
grammes) and was thus worth twenty ordinary staters; no other king or city
of ancient times was ever responsible for so ostentatious a display of
opulence. His most characteristic types relate to the worship of the
Dioscuri. On the reverse of the larger pieces Castor and Pollux appear side
by side, usually mounted (PI, IV, 4-6); the smaller often show the pointed
caps of the Brethren, surmounted by stars and flanked by palms. The
Greek legend is interesting. At first it is simply ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ
ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΟΥ, but presently it becomes ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ
,
EYKPATIAOY. As the more pretentious title is invariably used on the
.
gold and also on the bronze specially struck for Indian circulation, it is
perhaps permissible to connect its assumption with a successful invasion of
the territory of Demetrius. It may be noted that this is the first certain
instance of a king describing himself in the Greek legend on his coinage as
'the Great. ' On inscriptions the practice was older. In this case, it is
possibly a translation of the Indian title 'mahārāja' which is used
by Demetrius in his Kharoshthi coin-legends. There are several well-
marked varieties of portrait. On the earlier silver, and on one or two
bronze pieces, the king is represented bare-headed and with draped shoulders,
both ends of his diadem hanging stiffly down behind (Pl. IV, 4). Generally,
however, he wears a crested helmet, ornamented with the horn and ear of a
buli. On the great majority of examples the helmeted bust is draped and
looks towards the right (Pl. IV, 5). But on some very rare tetradrachms
the head is turned to the left, the shoulders are bare, and the right hand
is uplifted in the act of thrusting with a spear (Pl. IV, 6). The intimacy of
his association with India i3 proved, not only by the large number of square-
a


## p. 410 (#448) ############################################

410
(CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
more
shaped bilingual coins of bronze that have survived, but also by the fact
that, though he adhered as a rule to the Attic standard of weight, he also
issued silver of a class expressly designed to suit the convenience of Indian
traders. The standard used for the latter is closely allied to the Persic,
which had become established in N. W. India as a result of the Persian
dominion.
None of the coins of Eucratides bear dates. Notwithstanding this,
there are indirect means of utilising them so as to secure a partial confirma-
tion of what Justin says (XL1, 6) as to the usurper's rise to power being
or less contemporaneous with the accession of Mithradates I of
Parthia. Mithradates, it will be remembered, succeeded to the crown about
171 B. C. , and the emergence of Eucratides has been tentatively assigned to
175. He must certainly have been firmly seated on the throne a very few
years later. A unique silver tetradrachm, now in the British Museum,
has on the obverse a helmeted bust evidently copied from the best-known
coin-portrait of Eucratides, and on the reverse the Sun-god, driving in a
four-horse chariots. The legend is ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΙΠΛΑΤΩΝΟΣ,
while in the exergue are letters which, though not altogether clear, are
generally read as PMI and interpreted as referring to the year 147 of the
Seleucid Era (Pl. IV, 7). If the date has been correctly deciphered - the
first of the three numerals is very obscure—the tetradrachms with the
helmeted bust of Eucratides must, therefore, have been in circulation for
some time previous to 165 B. C. , and these were by no means the earliest
that he issued. Who Plato was, we have no means of knowing. The one
genuine specimen of his money that we possess - modern forgeries are far
from uncommon, is said? to have been originally procured from an
itinerant goldsmith of Shah-ke-Dheri, who had himself procured it some-
where in Central Asia, perhaps in the Hazara country or beyond the Hindu-
Kush. ' Its comparatively debased style betrays affinities with the coins of
kings whose domains were purely Indian. But whether Plato was a vassal
or a short-lived rival of Eucratides, we cannot say. His title ENIPANOYE,
which reads like an offset to META AOY, is borrowed from the coinage of
Antiochus IV (175-164) ; it does not appear in Parthia till nearly half a
century later.
Testimony of a similar character comes from farther west. Hardly
less rare than the solitary coin of Plato is the silver of Timarchus, satrap
of Babylon, who in 162 B. C. declined to acknowledge the authority of
Demetrius I of Syria, and issued money of his own in all three metals.
Both an obverse and on reverse his tetradrachm is an unblushing imitation
of the commonest tetradrachm of Eucratides, down even to the title
BALLAERS MECAAOY. If, as was suggested above, the assumption
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ
of the epithet' 'Great' is to be assocated with the conquest of India,
1 Num. Chron. 1875, p. 2,


## p. 411 (#449) ############################################

XVII)
PARTHIAN INVASION OF BACTRIA
411
162 B. C. thus becomes the terminus ante quem for that achievement.
A less definite but still highly probable reminiscence of the “Great King' of
Bactria has been detected by numismatists on some scarce bronze pieces of
the early Parthian series. Unless the Parthians were simply continuing the
types of coins which they found current in districts which they had
annexed by force? , it is curious that they should have borrowed anything
of the sort from Eucratides. He and they were bitter foes. The account
of their antagonism given by Justin (XLI, 6) is borne out by two brief
references in Strabo. The first (x1, 515) tells us that, after defeating first
Eucratides and then the Scythians, the Parthians incorporated a portion
of Bactria in their empire. That perhaps does not carry us very far. But
Strabo's second reference (xi, 517) is more explicit, though its value is
largely destroyed by what seems to be a deep-seated textual corruption.
The purport of it is that the Parthians took away from Eucratides two
Bactrian satrapies, called (according to Kramer's reading) TU TE 'AGT WOU
kai thu Toplou'av. These names convey no meaning to modern readers
because neither of them occurs anywhere else. We can only conjecture
what districts they are most likely to represent. If we decide for Aria and
Arachosia, we cannot be very far wrong; towards the close of the chapter
already cited Justin says that Mithradates I enlarged the boundaries of
the Parthian empire until it stretched from the Hindu Kush to the river
Euphrates. ' Expansion towards Margiāna and Drangiāna would be a
natural concomitant.
The portentous growth of this semi-barbarian power could not but
have the most serious effect on the development of Hellenic civilisation in
Central Asia. Parthia now lay like a great wedge between the Bactrian
Greeks and their kinsmen beyond the Euphrates, Intercommunication
had become difficult, reunion impossible. More than one of the successors
of Antiochus Epiphanes-notably Demetrius II (146-140) and Antiochus
VII (138-129) -flung themselves against the rock, only to be broken. And
it is not without significance that, if we may trust Josephus (Ant. Jud. XIII,
5, 11 [185]), the enterprise of Demetrius was undertaken in response to
repeated requests from 'Greeks and Macedonians. ' This should, perhaps,
be read in the light of the hint given by Justin (xxxvi,l), when he includes
the Bactrians among the allies who lent Demetrius their assistance in his
attempt to break down the domination of the Arsacidae. It was all in vain.
The Seleucid kings were hopelessly cut off from what had been in early
days one of the fairest provinces of their empire. On the other side of the
impenetrable barrier, Eucratides and his fellow countrymen hemmed in by
Mithradates on the west and exposed on the north to ever increasing pres-
1 The probability of this being the true explanation is greatly strengthened by
the fact that coins of the period of Mithradates I (B. M. Cat. Parthia, pl. III, 7, 10, 12)
seem to be imitated from the coins of Demetrius I or Euthydemus II with the standing
Heracles (Pl. III, 3, 4).


## p. 412 (#450) ############################################

412
[Ch.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
sure from the wandering tribes whom they vaguely designated 'Scythians,
were being steadily driven south-eastwards into the plains of India. Even
there, they were not to be safe either from Scythians or from Parthians.
That, however, is for a future chapter to show. Meanwhile it remains to
summarise the little that is known as to the final relinquishment of Bactria
by the Greeks.
Except for the somewhat rhetorical sentence in which Justin (XLI, 6)
contrasts the fate of the Bactrians with the phenomenal prosperity of
Parthia —'harassed by various wars, they finally lost, not merely their king-
dom, but their independence'-western historians have preserved hardly
any echo of the events that led up to the catastrophe. Had the vigorous
and capable Eucratides lived longer, it might have been postponed. It
could hardly have been averted; what we learn from Chinese sources
proves that it was inevitable. Justin makes Mithradates the main instru-
ment of the disaster, and no doubt his activity was in some measure
responsible. But the real cause was the bursting of the storm-cloud, whose
appearance on the northern horizon had been pointed out by the envoy
of Euthydemus to Antiochus the Great just two generations before. Strabo
knew the real facts, although he gives us no details, merely saying (x1, 515)
that 'the best known of the nomad tribes are those who drove the Greeks
out of Bactria, – the Asii, the Pasiani, the Tochari, and the Sacarauli, who
came from the country on the other side of the Jaxartes, over against the
Sacae and Sogdiani, which country was also in occupation of the Sacae. '
The Prologue to the lost History of Pompeius Trogus (XLI) is even less
illuminating : it contents itself with barely mentioning that the main work
had told how 'the Saraucae and Asiani seized Bactria and Sogdiana. '
The inconsistencies of nomenclature here might be easily enough reconciled.
But, after all, such an adjustment would leave us very much where we were.
The Chinese records bring more enlightenment. From them we learn that
the Yueh-chi, pushed westwards by the Huns about 165 B. C. , displaced the
Çakas, who inhabited the country of the Jaxartes to the north-east of
Sogdiāna, and Bactria, and that they then crossed the Jaxartes and con-
quered the whole of Sogdiāna, probably driving the Çakas before them
into Bactria and fixing their capital a little to the north of the Oxus. This
was the beginning of the end. The struggle may have dragged on for twenty
or thirty years, but its issue was never doubtful. Bactria had to be
abandoned by its Greek rulers to the Çaka hordes. And the turn of the
Çakas was to come. The report of Chang-kien, a Chinese envoy who
visited the Yueh-chi in 126 B. C. , is still extant. These nomads were then
settled in Sogdiāna, and the report speaks in somewhat contemptuous terms
of their southern neighbours, the Ta-hia, by whom are apparently meant
the native population of Bactria : they were a nation of shopkeepers, living
in towns each governed by its magistrate, and caring nothing for the


## p. 413 (#451) ############################################

XVII]
SCYTHIAN INVASION OF BACTRIA
413
delight or the glory of battle. At some date which is doubtful, but which
cannot at the latest be more than year or two subsequent to 126, the
Yueh-chi, urged forward by fresh pressure from the East, crossed the
barrier of the Oxus, expelled the Cakas, and occupied all the country as
far south as the Hindu Kush. From the Ta-hia no serious resistance was
to be expected. But, as the retreating Çakas made their way westwards,
they probably encountered the fierce opposition of Parthia ; just about this
time two of the Parthian kings, Phraates II and Artabanus I are said to
have fallen in battle with the Scythians.
Obviously the situation which Eucratides would have had to face in
Bactria, had he ever returned from his last Indian campaign, would have
been peculiarly trying. It is not surprising that his successor would have
failed to make headway against the oncoming tide. The numismatic
evidence shows that the successor was Heliocles. In all probability he
was also the parricide. Cunningham, it is true, was of a different opinion,
holding that the unnatural murder was the work of Apollodotus, another
king who has left a considerable number of coins, mostly of a strictly
Indian character? . But the idea that there was any blood relationship
between Apollodotus and Eucratides is purely hypothetical.
It is more
probable, indeed, that Apollodotus belonged to the rival family of
Euthydemus. He may have been contemporary with Eucratides, but there
is nothing whatever to suggest a closer connexion? . On the other hand,
it will be remembered that Justin (XLI, 6 ) lays the crime to the charge of
the heir apparent. And according to Greek custom the eldest son of
Eucratides would normally be called Heliocles after his grandfather. If he
had any brother, there is a stronger claimant for the honour than
Apollodotus. In describing the coinage of Eucratides, no mention was
made of a small group of silver pieces, which are usually believed to
represent his earliest issue. They are mainly tetradrachms, the drachms
being of semi-barbarous execution. The obverse bears a diademed head
with a bead and reel border; on the reverse is a draped figure of Apollo
standing to left, holding an arrow and a bow, the inscription being
,
ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΟΥ (PI. IV, 9). It may be that the view
generally taken of these coins is correct. But there are two serious difficul-
ties in the way of accepting it. In the first place, it would be unusual, if
not unprecedented, for a Bactrian king to use more than one distinctive
type for his Attic silver, and the characteristic type of Eucratides, was, as
we know, the group of the Dioscuri. In the second place, the style of the
obverse has the closest possible resemblance to that of the obverse of some
of the tetradrachms of Heliocles. A comparison of Plate IV, 9, with
1 The silver coins of the Attic standard were struck in the kingdom of Kāpiça,
which formed the connecting link between Bactria and India. See chapter XXII,
2 Ibid.
.


## p. 414 (#452) ############################################

414
[CH.
SYRIA, BACTRIA AND PARTHIA
Plate IV, 8, for instance, reveals a similarity that is almost startling. It
forces one to ask whether Heliocles may not have had a younger brother,
who had the same name as his father and who was proclaimed king after
the latter's murder. When ancient states were on the verge of ruin,
kings were apt to multiply. Nor is it a valid objection to urge that no
second Eucratides is known to the literary texts. The name of Heliocles
himself has been rescued from oblivion by his coins.
He is the last king of India whose money is found to the north of
the Hindu Kush. Clearly, therefore, it was in his reign that Bactria was
,
abandoned to the Çakas. This was probably not later than 135 B. C. What
the condition of the country then became, is wholly doubtful. The language
used of the Ta-bia by Chang-kien, the Chinese envoy, is interpreted by
some as indicating that they were largely left to themselves by the intruders,
and that they did not acknowledge the authority of a central government
at all. But here again we are in the realm of conjecture. Our only definite
evidence for Heliocles is numismatic, and the inferences of which it
admits are scanty. The characteristic type on his Attic silver is Zeus,
generally standing to front, grasping a thunderbolt and leaning on a long
sceptre, the inscription being ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ ΗΛΙΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ (PI.
IV,8). Very rare tetradrachms and drachms combine a helmeted bust on the
obverse with a seated figure of the god on the reverse. The standing Zeus
reappears on bilingual coins of Indo-Persic weight and of markedly different
style. These are sufficiently common to show the diminishing importance
of the Bactrian part of Heliocles's kingdom, and the corresponding advance
of the purely Indian element. With the exception of Apollodotus and
Antialcidas, he is the last of the Græco-Indian rules to employ the Attic
standard at all. He also re-strikes the coins of Agathocleia reigning con-
jointly with her son Strato I Soter, an indication no doubt that the inter-
necine struggle between the house of Eucratides and the house of
Euthydemus which had begun in Bactria was continued in India. Finally,
a faint memory of his name must have lingered on among barbarian
immigrants long after the day when he fled before their approach. Once
settled in the midst of a nation of shopkeepers, the nomads speedily
learned that a coinage was indispensable. To provide it they had recourse
to rude imitations of the money of their Greek predecessors, and their most
popular models were the bronze of Heliocles and the silver of Euthydemus.
Their currency thus supplies a pathetic epilogue to the story of the rise
and fall of the Greek kingdom of Bactria. The anuals of Hellas abound
in episodes as rich in romance as any tale the Middle Ages ever wove.
Nothing they contain is more calculated to appeal to the imagination than
the fortunes of these heirs of the great Alexander. That their civilisation
was a brilliant one, we may safely conclude from the quality of the art


## p. 415 (#453) ############################################

XVII)
KEY TO PLATES I-IV
415
displayed upon their coins. The pity of it is that the store of facts for the
reconstruction of their history is so slender. The surmises are many,
and the certainties are few. Excavation may mend matters some day.
Until then the utmost limit of possible achievement is to sketch a rough
outline that shall not be inconsistent with such scattered fragments of
evidence as survive.
KEY TO PLATES I-IV
PLATE
1. A. Persia. Obv. The Great King hastening r. . wearing kidaris and kandys ,
and holding spear and strung how. Rev. Irregular oblong incuse. [B. M.
Daric. Fifth or fourth century B. C.
2. R Persia. Obv. Similar type ; punch-mark. Rev. Similar incuse ; punch-mark.
[B. M. ] Siglos. Fifth century B. C.
3. R. Persia. Obv. Similar type ; but King holds dagger, instead of spear ; two
punch mark. Rev. Similar incuse ; four punch-marks. [B. M. ] Siglos.
Fourth century B. C.
4. R. India. Obv. Plain ; group of punch-marks. Rev. Plain ; two punch-marks,
[B. M. ) Kārshāpaņa. c. 300 B. C.
5. R. India. Obv. Similar Rev. Similar. (B. D. ) Kärshāpaņa c, 300 B. C.
6. A. Persia. Obv. Similar to no. 1; but behind, ETA, with MNA beneath and
☆ in front. Rev. Wavy hands. [B. M. ] Double Daric. After c. 331 B. C.
7. Ri Athens (Asiatic imitation). Obv. Head of Athena r. , wearing helmet
adorned with olive-leaves. Rev. AⓇE Owl r. ; behind, olive-spray and
crescent ; in front, [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 350-300 B. C.
8. R. Athens (Asiatic imitation). Obv. Similar type. Rev. AIT Similar type ; same
symbols. [B. M. ] Attic Tetradrachm. c. 350-300 B. C.
9. R. Atbens (Asiatic imitation). Obv. Similar type, of different style ; behind,
Rev. Similar to no. 7, with bunch of grapes behind. [B. M. ) Attic
Tetradrachm. c. 350-300 B. C.
10 R. Athens (Asiatic imitation). Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar. [B. M. ) Attic
Tetradrachm. c. 350-300 B. C.
11. R. Athens (Asiatic imitation). Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar;. with out bunch of
grapes. (B. M. ) Attic Didrachm, c. 350-300 B. C.
12. R. Athens (Asiatic imitation). Obv. Similar. Rev. Similar, with a behind. [B. M.
Attic Druchm. c. 350-300 B. C.