DIODOTUS II THEOS GREEK KING OF BACTRIA

 Diodotus II Theos (Greek: Διόδοτος Θεός, Diódotos Theós; died c. 225 BCE) was the son and successor of Diodotus I Soter, who rebelled against the Seleucid empire, establishing the Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom. Diodotus II probably ruled alongside his father as co-regent, before succeeding him as sole king around 235 BCE. He prevented Seleucid efforts to reincorporate Bactria back into the empire, by allying with the Parthians against them. He was murdered around 225 BCE by the usurper Euthydemus I, who succeeded him as king.

Diodotus’ career was recounted by Apollodorus of Artemita in the Parthian History, but this text is lost, and surviving literary sources only mention him in passing. Thus, most details of Diodotus' life and career have to be reconstructed from numismatics.

The Seleucid empire gained control of Bactria and the surrounding regions between 308 and 305 BCE and made it a satrapy (province) of their empire. Diodotus' father, Diodotus I ruled the region of Bactria as a satrap (governor) some time in the 260s BCE and gradually drifted into independence during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus II Theos (261-246 BCE). The process culminated in Diodotus I's proclamation of himself as king sometime between 255 and 245 BCE.

Coinage minted under Diodotus I derives from two separate mints. The coinage of one mint features a mature man on the obverse—generally identified as Diodotus I, while the obverse of coinage produced at the other mint depicts a similar, but younger, figure. Frank L. Holt proposes that the latter was Diodotus II. He suggests that Diodotus was entrusted with control of a portion of the realm that included the second mint. This arrangement would follow the model laid down by the Seleucids, who had made a practice of appointing the crown prince as co-regent and entrusting them with government of the eastern portion of the empire (including Bactria). The location of the region under Diodotus II's control is unknown; Holt tentatively suggests that he controlled the western region which was exposed to raids from Parthia and had his base at Bactra.

During his reign, Diodotus I had expelled the Parni king Arsaces I from Bactria. Arsaces had gone on to seize the region of Parthia from the Seleucids and carved out his own kingdom in what is now northeastern Iran. Diodotus I remained opposed to the Parni and thus aligned with the Seleucids. On his accession, Diodotus II reversed his father's policy:

Soon after, relieved by the death of Diodotus [I], Arsaces made peace and concluded an alliance with his son, also by the name of Diodotus; some time later he fought against Seleucus [II] who came to punish the rebels, but he prevailed: the Parthians celebrated this day as the one that marked the beginning of their freedom.

— Justin, 41.4

This battle between Seleucus II and Arsaces took place around 228 BCE. It is unclear whether Diodotus was actively involved in the battle or simply agreed to remain neutral, thereby leaving Arsaces free to bring all his forces to bear on the invading Seleucid army.

Sometime after this, around 225 BCE, Diodotus was killed by Euthydemus I, who usurped the throne and founded the Euthydemid dynasty. W. W. Tarn proposed that Diodotus I had married a Seleucid princess as a second wife and had a daughter who was married to Euthydemus, making him Diodotus II's brother-in-law. There is, however, no evidence for the existence of either of these women and the theory no longer enjoys credence with contemporary scholars. Archaeological evidence reveals that the city of Ai-Khanoum was besieged around 225 BCE, an event which Holt connects with Euthydemus' seizure of power. It seems therefore that there was a period of civil war, culminating in Euthydemus' victory—a reconstruction that seems to be confirmed by numismatic evidence.

Most scholars have treated the alliance with Arsaces as a response to the threat from Seleucus II. Tarn suggested that Euthydemus I's usurpation was a reaction to the alliance. Frank Holt proposes the opposite: that the alliance with Arsaces was a response to the outbreak of civil war with Euthydemus.

Diodotus II largely continued the minting patterns laid down by his father. There were two mints, which issued gold, silver and bronze coinage. The precious metal coinage consisted of gold staters and silver tetradrachms, drachms, and hemidrachms on the Attic weight standard. These coins have the head of a male figure on the obverse shown wearing the diadem—a band of cloth wrapped around the head, with two strips hanging down the back, which had been the standard symbol of Hellenistic kingship since the time of Alexander the Great. The reverse of these coins depicted Zeus preparing to throw His thunderbolt. As mentioned above, during Diodotus I's reign, two different figures appeared on the obverses—an older figure ('series A') and a younger figure ('series C & E'), who are identified with Diodotus I and Diodotus II respectively. Series A and C probably minted at Ai-Khanoum or at Bactra, while Series E was minted at a second mint, which Frank Holt tentatively identifies with Bactra.This mint produced coinage in a smaller quantity and at a lower quality than that of the Ai-Khanoum/Bactra mint. He proposes that the small series C was minted at the main mint in order to establish Diodotus II's position as heir apparent of the whole Kingdom.

After a break, both mints produce coins with the younger portrait and with the legend now Ancient Greek: Βασιλεωσ Διοδοτου ('Of Diodotus', 'series D & F'), whereas the legend on the earlier coins was Ancient Greek: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ('Of King Antiochus'). Holt suggests that this break marks the death of Diodotus I and accession of Diodotus II. This shift in legends seems to reflect the final renunciation of Seleucid authority and a full proclamation of Bactrian independence.

For the majority of his reign, Diodotus II issued coinage on a relatively modest scale. Towards the end of his reign, he began to mint on a much larger scale, with greater quantities of gold coinage than previously. This was accompanied by the production of an issue at the secondary mint, depicting the older figure of Diodotus I once more, but in a more idealised fashion ('series B'). Frank Holt proposes that these phenomena were a consequence of a civil war between Diodotus II and Euthydemus. He argues that the scale of minting indicates the need to provide coinage for a large number of soldiers—indicating some kind of military threat—while the series B coinage may have been intended to emphasise Diodotus II's legitimacy as son of the Kingdom's founder.

Diodotus II also issued a bronze coinage. Initially, this coinage bore the same obverse design as that of Diodotus I: head of Hermes wearing a petasus hat ('Series H'). However, the reverse design is new: a depiction of Athena resting on her spear and the introduction of a new legend, reading "Βασιλεωσ Διοδοτου" ("of King Diodotus"), as on the gold and silver coinage. The coinage consisted of four denominations: a 'double' (c. 8.4 g, 20-24 mm in diameter), a 'single' (4.2 g, 14–18 mm), a 'half' (2.1g, 10–12 mm), and a 'quarter' (1 g, 8–10 mm). Only the first two of these denominations seem to be attested under Diodotus I. The value of these denominations is uncertain; a single may have been worth 1/48 of a silver drachm. After this initial issue, Diodotus introduced a new set of designs ('Series I'). On the double and single denominations, these depict the head of Zeus on the obverse (except on one issue depicting a king—probably by accident), and the Goddess Artemis on the reverse. On the quarters, they have an eagle on the obverse and a quiver on the reverse (symbols of Zeus and Artemis respectively). These bronze coins were found in very large numbers in the excavations of Ai-Khanoum and in smaller quantities at Gyaur Gala (Merv, Turkmenistan) and Takht-i Sangin. The profusion of bronze coinage, whose value was token, especially in the very smallest denominations, indicates the progressive monetisation taking place in Bactria by the time of Diodotus II.

Diodotus also appears on coins struck in his memory by the later Graeco-Bactrian kings Agathocles and Antimachus I. These coins imitate the original design of the tetradrachms issued by Diodotus II, but with a legend on the obverse identifying the king as Ancient Greek: Διοδοτου Θεου ('Of Diodotus Theos').

Edited from Wikipedia

GREEK COLONIES IN THE EAST

The Black Sea littoral, initially called by the Greeks "inhospitable," was colonized intensively by them. Ancient written sources number these colonies between 75 and 90. According to the ancient Greek geographer Strabo, Miletus, the most prosperous city of Ionia (ancient East Greece, the western part of modern-day turkey), was known to many. Its fame was due mainly to the large number of its colonies, since the whole of Pontus Euxinus (the Black Sea), Propontis (Sea of Marmara), and many other places had been settled by Milesians.

The reasons for Ionian colonization have been argued for many decades as one aspect of the general debate about why the Greeks established so many colonies. Nowadays, most scholars agree that colonization was enforced migration. Ionian cities were situated in favorable geographical locations and possessed large tracts of fertile land. Miletus, called "the pearl of Ionia," was, the center of Greek culture during the Archaic period. At the end of the 8th century, Ionians began advancing deeply into the hinterland: Miletus, for example, pushed its frontiers twenty to thirty miles up the river valley. This expansion led to conflict between Lydians and Ionians, with Lydian kings seeking to push the Ionians back toward the coast. The principal outcome was to diminish the amount of cultivable land available to the Ionians. This was the chief reason why from the mid-7th century, Miletus, which had never undertaken colonization, became the last Greek city to do so.

The struggles between Lydia and Ionia came to an end at the beginning of the 6th century, when Miletus was obliged to accept a treaty reducing its territorial possessions. This, in turn, provoked an internal crisis in Miletus, whose resolution prompted large-scale migration and the establishment of new colonies on the Black Sea. New and hitherto unparalleled difficulties arose in the middle of the 6th century, as the expanding Persian empire conquered Ionian cities. Ancient written sources state directly that the Ionians faced a stark choice: death and enslavement or flight. In these circumstances migration was the obvious course, leading to the foundation of more new colonies. This did not mark the end of forced migration: in 499 B.C.E. an Ionian uprising against Persian rule was crushed, and in 494 BCE Miletus was sacked and burned. In consequence, a final wave of Ionian colonies was established on the Black Sea at the beginning of the 5th century B.C.E.

Archaeology provides the principal evidence for Greek colonies on the Black Sea. There are a few written sources on the establishment of Pontic Greek cities, but they are contradictory, giving different dates of foundation and mixing myths with other explanations of the colonization process. The first colonies appeared in the last third of the 7th century, and by the end of it Berezan, Histria, Sinope, possibly Amisus and Trapezus, Apollonia Pontica, and the Taganrog settlement on the Sea of Azov had been founded. All were very small, situated on peninsulas. The next wave of colonization dates to the beginning of the 6th century and witnessed the establishment of Olbia, Panticapaeum, Nymphaeum, Theodosia, Myrmekion, Kepoi, Patraeus, Tomis, and others. Hermonassa, on the Taman Peninsula (South Russia), was a joint foundation of Miletus and Mytilene in the second quarter of the 6th century B.C.E.

From the middle of the 6th century, other Ionian Greek cities were in the business of establishing colonies: Teos founded Phanagoria (Taman Peninsula), and the (non-Ionian) Megarians and Boeotians founded Heraclea, on the southern shores of the Pontus circa 556 B.C.E. The latter colony developed as a major trading center for the whole Pontus and, in turn, established its own colonies: Chersonesus in the Crimea was founded in the last quarter of the 5th century (where a small Ionian settlement had existed from the end of the 6th century) and, later, Callatis on the Western coast. Also, during the mid-6th century  Miletus established three colonies on the eastern Black Sea (in the ancient country of Colchis)—Phasis, Gyenos, and Dioscurias. The final Ionian colonizers arrived at the end of the 6th/beginning of the 5th century B.C.E., establishing new colonies (Mesambria, Kerkinitis, and others) and settling in existing ones. In newly established colonies, Apollo was the major deity, as He was in Miletus.

During  their first 60 to 80 years of existence, the colonies were very simple in terms of architecture and urban planning.  There was virtually no stone architecture; instead there were pit houses. Nor was there regular town planning. The only colony with fortification walls was Histria. A complete change of appearance took place at the end of the 6th/first half of the 5h century. Pit houses gave way to typical Greek stone dwellings. It is possible to identify clearly standard features of Greek urbanization, such as the agora, temenos, acropolis, and craftsmen's quarter, among others. Temples were built in the Ionic and Doric orders. As the result of a change in the local political situation, cities began to construct stone fortification walls. The exception is the region of the eastern Black Sea, where, thanks to natural conditions (wetlands and marshes, for example), temples and fortification walls as well as dwellings were constructed of wood.

Every Greek city became a center of craft production. In Histria and Nymphaeum pottery kilns were found dating from the mid-6th centuryB.C.E..; in Panticapaeum from the end of the century; and in Chersonesus, Gorgippia, Histria, Phanagoria, and Sinope from the 5th to the2nd centuries. They produced such things as terra-cotta figurines, lamps, loom weights, and tableware; in Heraclea, Sinope, and Chersonesus, amphorae were made as well. Through the migration of Sinopean potters, the Greek cities of Colchis began to produce their own amphorae from the second half of the 4th century B.C.E. From the 4th century, tiles and architectural terra-cotta were manufactured in Apollonia Pontica, Chersonesus, Olbia, Tyras, and the Bosporan cities (on the Kerch and Taman Peninsulas). The Bosporan cities and Histria produced simple painted pottery, which imitated the shapes of East Greek and Attic pottery.

Nearly every Greek city has left traces of metalworking. In Panticapaeum, for example, workshops were found in two areas. The workshops, which produced iron, bronze, and lead objects (including weapons), contained numerous moulds, iron ore, and slags in the remains of furnaces. In Phanagoria, pottery and metal workshops were situated at the edge of the city. One produced life-size bronze statues. Metalworking in the Pontic Greek cities was based mainly on the use of ingots specially produced for them, for example, in wooden-steppe Scythia for the northern Black Sea cities. The same situation most probably obtained in the other parts of the Black Sea.

Agriculture was the main economic activity. Greek cities established their agricultural territories, called chorai, almost immediately. Their size varied over time; initially they were small but grew larger with the appearance of new colonists and the expansion of the cities. In the 4th century B.C.E., the chorai of Olbia and Chersonesus and of the cities of the Bosporan Kingdom each covered an area of about 150,000 hectares and contained several hundred settlements. These rural settlements were sources of agricultural produce for the inhabitants of the cities. There were several settlements specializing entirely in craft production. The wonderfully preserved chora of Chersonesus in the Crimea is unique, as is Metapontum in Italy. Chersonesus was situated in the Heraclean Peninsula, approximately 11,000 hectares of which was divided c. 350 B.C.E. into four hundred lots, each with six subdivisions, to make 2,400 small allotments. They were used mainly for viticulture and growing fruit trees. About 4,000 hectares along the north coast were the basis of the earliest allotments. There was a second chora of Chersonesus in the northwestern Crimea, entirely for grain production.

Trade was one of the principal economic activities of Greek cities. The main sources for the study of trade relations are pottery and amphorae. In the 7th and early 6th centuries B.C.E., pottery from southern Ionia was common throughout the Pontic region; later it was displaced by pottery from northern Ionia. Goods transported in amphorae came from Chios, Lesbos, and Clazomenae. The small quantities of Corinthian and Naucratite goods probably were brought by Ionian merchants, who also were responsible, with Aeginetans, for the appearance of the first Archaic Athenian pottery in the region. In the Classical period Athenian pottery predominates, as evidence discoverd  from the excavation of the Pontic Greek cities demonstrates. This pottery probably reflects direct links between them and Athens.

Trade between the Pontic Greek cities and the local peoples is an extremely important but complex question. All discussion is based on the finds of Greek pottery made in local settlements, some as far as 500–600 kilometers inland from the Black Sea. Overall, about 10 percent of known and excavated local sites, especially for the Classical period, yield examples, but usually they are few in number (as is the case, for example, in both the Thracian and Colchian hinterlands). At the same time, local elite tombs each provide several examples of Athenian painted pottery. Thus, a simple explanation of the very close trade relationship between Greeks and locals is no longer tenable.

There are other ways in which pottery could have reached local settlements, and the small quantity cannot support the argument that the more examples, the closer and more intense the links. Painted pottery from elite tombs cannot be viewed only from the perspective of trade relationships: it is not known how the locals interpreted the scenes depicted on the painted pottery, which could have been a gift from the Greeks and not traded. Furthermore, the tombs contained jewelry and metal vessels, on which the local elite was much keener, in far greater quantities than pottery.

Over time the composition of imports and exports changed. The best account is found in the Histories of the Greek historian Polybius (book 4):

'As regards necessities, it is an undisputed fact that the most plentiful supplies and best qualities of cattle and slaves reach us from the countries lying around the Pontus, while among luxuries, the same countries furnish us with an abundance of honey, wax and preserved fish; from the surplus of our countries they take olive-oil and every kind of wine. As for grain, there is give and take—with them sometimes supplying us when we require it and sometimes importing it from us.'

From the start, the history of the colonies is inseparable from that of the local population. Many ethnic groups lived around the Black Sea, among whom the most prominent were the Thracians, Getae, Scythians, Tauri, Maeotians, Colchians, Mariandyni, and Chalybes. From the earliest days of the colonies, locals formed part of their population. For the Archaic period not much is known about the relationship between Greeks and local peoples, although it was most probably peaceful until the end of the 6th century/beginning of the 5th century B.C.E. Thereafter, local kingdoms grew up, such as the Thracian (Odrysian), Colchian, and Scythian. Relations between these kingdoms and the Greek colonies were at times peaceful and at others hostile. In about 480 B.C.E. a phenomenon unique for the whole Greek world in the Classical period took place: the Greek cities situated on the Kerch and Taman Peninsulas united, to withstand Scythian pressure, in a single state, known as the Bosporan Kingdom (whose capital was Panticapaeum). The rulers of this state were tyrants. Its final consolidation was completed by the middle of the 4th century B.C.E. In character it was akin to the kingdoms that mushroomed in the Hellenistic period.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/greek-colonies-east