The Indo-Greek coins are a very important source of ancient Indian history. The term “Indo-Greek” is generally used because these kingdoms were almost always separated from Bactria and thus differed politically from the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Their rule extended over a vast part of central Asia and north western South Asia. It included the modern areas of Afghanistan, north western part of Pakistan, the Indian provinces of Kashmir and Punjab. There were several dynasties and over 40 rulers of the Indo-Greek lineage who ruled over this extended time period. And surprisingly the main sources of information about the rule of these numerous kings is the numismatic evidence.
These kingdoms, in which there were already some Greek settlers called Yavanas or Yona (They are referred to as a community in Indian texts and history under western countries along with Sindhu, Madra, Kekeya, Gandhara and Kamboja as per the descriptions in the epic Mahabharata) became truly unique political entities with a mix of Greek and Indian culture, at least for the ruling elites. The dating ofIndo-Greek kingdoms is very approximate. Between 190 BCE and circa 165 BCE, Greek lands in India were divided among several Euthydemid kings,who fought among themselves and their Greco-Bactrian neighbors. These kingdoms extended to Western Punjab and had Indians of Sunga dynasty as their neighbors.
South Asia, and more precisely the modern state of India has experienced the incursion of several tribes throughout its history. Many of the famous military generals of the world had made their mark in the territories of South Asia. The Greek military genius Alexander the Great also attacked north western India albeit without much success. The invasion of Alexander took place in year 326 BCE. However, he succeeded in establishing several Greek colonies. He left some of his military generals and soldiers to occupy and rule his Indian and Central Asian conquests. These Greek generals came to be known as Indo-Greeks in the history. They ruled roughly during the period between mid-3rd century BCE, when Diodotus I established an independent kingdom, to early 1st century BCE when they were overwhelmed by the Parthians and the Shakas.
The Indo-Greek coins inaugurated a new phase in the history of South Asian coinage. These coins carried elaborate details about their issuing authority. The name, the issuing year of the coin and a portrait of the reigning monarch was die-struck with precision.
We can identify elaborate measures of coin circulation in the Indo-Greek territory. The coins circulated in the north of the Hindu Kush Mountains were mainly made of gold, silver, copper and nickel. They were struck according to Attic weight standard. The obverse of the coins carried the portrait of the issuing monarch. The reverse of the coin was marked by the depiction of Greek Gods and Goddesses. The name of the monarch and his royal titles were also mentioned in the reverse in Greek.
The coins which were circulated in the south of the Hindu Kush bear a more Indian touch. They were mostly made of silver and copper. Most of these coins are round, while some of them are square. These coins were struck according to Indian weight standard and bear the royal portrait on the obverse; but their reverse was marked by Indian religious symbols rather than Greek. These type of coins also carried bilingual and bi-script inscriptions using the Greek and Prakrit languages; and Greek and Kharosthi or Brahmi scripts.
The Indo-Greek coins have been found in large numbers in modern-day Afghanistan. The largest number of coins was discovered from Gardez. This hoard is known as the Mir Zakah hoard. It yielded 13,083 coins. Among them, 2,757 were Indo-Greek coins. Other major finds are the hoard found at Khisht Tepe near Qunduz and the coins found during excavations at the city of Ai-Khanoum.
Out of 42 Indo-Greek kings who ruled, about 34 kings are known only through their coins. Coins of such kings as Menander depicted them slowly progressing from their adolescence to old age;another indication of their long reigns. The high standard of coinage set by the Indo-Greeks worked as a model for several other Indian dynasties for a very long period of time. The representation of Indian religious figures and symbols in the Indo-Greek coins has a greater significance for the cultural history of South Asia. This illustrated the syncretism of the Indo-Greek rulers. A sort of cultural and religious fusion between India and Greece can be traced from these coins.
The last Indo-Greek king Strato II ended his rule circa 10 BCE, defeated by the Indo-Saka king Rajuvula.
The Indo-Greek Kingdoms have strongly influenced their Indian subjects and Indian or nomad neighbors, as the nature of Indian art from the period suggests, along with the mention of the Yonas in Ashoka's Edicts.
Challenges in Analyzing Indo-Greek Kings and their coinage
The principal problem that occurs in the study of Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Kingdoms is the number of their kings. More than 32 kings in not really more than 250 years.
Lack of information is a common problem for historians of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Kingdoms.
Most of what we know about those kings is through numismatics. Although Greek and Roman literature speaks of about 6 Greco-Bactrian kings, coins number more than 32 kings.
It is suggested that some Bactrian kings could have been co-opted.
There is proof of fighting among Greco-Bactrian Kings, soon after they conquered Indian territories in the Punjab. After this we have several kings who issued only monolingual coins (Greek), and others who issued almost only bilingual ones. This shows a geographical frontline between those Kingdoms somewhere in the Hindukush, some ruling over the Bactrian territories and the others over the Indian ones. A deep study of the coin legends shows that Greco-Bactrian kings, at least at some point, used their titles in a different way from other Hellenistic kingdoms. In the memorial coinage of Agathokles (where on the obverse the King is commemorated and on the reverse is Agathokles himself), posthumous titles are added to kings. One of them, Theos (meaning "the God") is added to Euthydemos I, who is called like this in his coins, and to Diodotos I, whom we know that he let his son Diodotos II take part of kingship during his reign.
This, added to a somewhat intriguing title of a later Queen, Agathokleia "Theotropos", which can be put in parallel with the usual "Epitropos" title meaning "Regent", lets Widemann think about a designation of superiority by the Kings who take the title Theos. They were always the ones who made monolingual coins and ruled in Bactria, meanwhile the others, called Sôter ("Saviour") or Dikaios ("The Just"), are always issuing bilingual coins. Note that, since Eucratides' usurping of the throne c. 170 BCE, this system no longer applied.
Holding a large Kingdom, with a good half being populated by non-Greeks, with both parts of this Kingdom separated by the strong Hindukush mountains, knowing that civil war is always pretty close, is a pretty hard thing. This can be the reason for a co-opted system, with a king of Bactria ruling nominally all of the kingdom but in fact just the part West and North of the Hindukush, and a co-opted King ruling East of it, but with the Bactrian king having the precedence over the Indo-Greek one.
We also have the problem of the Saka invasions in the Ganges area. Bopearachchi talks about a Saka invasion c. 70 BCE which led to the rule of the mighty Maues at Taxila. Nevertheless, there is no proof of such an invasion.
Maues is a special case: First, he is the only Saka ruler to represent himself by a bust on his coin, the others showing themselves on a horse, like mounted warriors. Also, there is a rare coinage of him with a certain Queen Machènè -she is on the obverse with the Greek legend, and he is on the reverse with the kharosthi legend. Machènè seems to be a Greek name, and the character which is at the obverse is usually the most important. If they were married, or if she was Regent, they would be on the same side of the coin, like all others did, even Indo-Greek ones (see Calliope/Hermaios, or Agathokleia/Strato for example). So there is probably something different here.
Widemann's thesis is that Maues was the chief of the Sakas who settled in the Indo-Greek kingdom. This is highly possible: We have proof that Bactrian kings used Sakas to contain other invaders; many of them probably became somewhat Hellenized and went south to Punjab with their Greek rulers when they abandoned Bactria to the Yuezhei. The kind of representation that is found on Maues' coins supports this argument. Maybe Maues took an important place in a moment of crisis, such as being a vice-regent. We have a certain Telephos, an Indo-Greek King by his name at least, who called himself "son of Maues". Maybe he was the son of Machènè, and as Queen, she looked for the protection of the Sakas and so found Maues in a time of weakness? We must not forget that in Macedonia, Antigonos Doson, being the vice-regent for Philip, appears in an inscription with the title of king, although Philip gave him no title.
We know far too little to say what is right or wrong, but what is certain is that Maues was not a "Saka invader" from the North of the Hindukush. His coins show him like an Hellenized Saka, probably one of those settled in Indo-Greek Patalene or Surastene.
Following Bopearachchi, there was an almost-consensus that the last Indo-Greek kingdom survived in the Eastern Punjab until c. 10 CE, under the rule of Strato II or III. Nevertheless, taking one hypothesis of Bopearachchi in another way, there are some indications that could show us that there still existed one Indo-Greek kingdom around Alexandria Kapisa (Alexandria of the "Caucasus") until c. 15/20 CE.
The problem is related of the "Hermaios" coinage. Many coins bearing this name have been discovered, but the chronological field of those coins is really too large for only one King. In ancient times, kings never put a number after their name when they were not the first to take the name. For example, Ptolemaios XI issued "Ptolemaiou Basileôs", without any number. Even knowing this, Bopearachchi chose to put some of the "Hermaios coins" in a "barbarous imitations" section, due to their poor style and their belonging to the Hindukush area in the very late 1st century BCE, because that is the only really plausible solution that works with his theory on the Saka invasion c. 70 BCE.
Nevertheless, the Sakas who settled into independent kingdoms in India in the 1st century BCE seemed to have always made coins with their own representations and names. Even the Sakas of Seistan, West of the Hindukush, had at this time their own coinage, so why imitate the series of an Indo-Greek king? In the same way, there is coinage of Hermaios (at the obverse in Greek legend), but with a reverse of the koushan Kujula Kadphises (in Kharosthi).
More than seeing a simple imitation of a local currency, there is more probably an indication of a diplomatic message to the Greeks: a King named Hermaios allied himself with Kujula, or Kujula claimed to be in the succession of the Greek rulers of this area by minting this coin. Here we are dealing with the least known part of the Indo-Greek history, so for now it is impossible to say why this coin was minted, but what seems rather possible is the existence of several kings named Hermaios ruling an Indo-Greek kingdom centred around Alexandria Kapisa in the Hindukush at most until the invasion of Gondophares II c. 20 CE.
So here are three theses that could, if proven correct, change many of our views on Bactrian history and even also on Indian and Indo-Saka history. The co-opted system of rulership would make those Indo-Greek kingdoms even more exceptional and interesting to study, showing an example of how to deal with the problem of ruling two very different and separate areas in ancient times.
EDITED FROM: ancient indian coin collection
No comments:
Post a Comment