Attribution of the Apollodotus Coins

The article examines the historical controversy surrounding the existence of two distinct kings named Apollodotus in the Indo-Greek period, a debate that has persisted since 1886. P. Gardner initially distinguished between the coins of the first and second Apollodotus, a theory later adopted by scholars such as Rapson, Tarn, Marshall, and Whitehead. However, Dr. A. K. Narain recently disputed this theory in his book *The Indo-Greeks*, arguing that the coins were arbitrarily divided and actually belong to a single ruler. The author of this article refutes Narain’s claim through a detailed numismatic analysis of the silver and copper coinage. The author argues that the division between the two kings is not arbitrary but is based on clear, consistent, and fundamental differences in the coins' styles and legends. The evidence presented focuses on the position of the royal name in the coin legends, the physical fabric and workmanship of the coins, the presence of specific monograms and detached letters, and distinct iconographic features. Specifically, the coins of Apollodotus I feature the king's name before his epithet in both Greek and Prakrit legends, exhibit finer fabric and better workmanship, and include Attic hemidrachms and square copper pieces. In contrast, the coins attributed to Apollodotus II place the king's name after the epithet, are generally of inferior fabric, and are invariably round or bear Kharosthi monograms. Ultimately, the author concludes that the coins of Apollodotus I and Apollodotus II form two distinct series that could not have been struck by the same king. To resolve the issue of varying epithets, the author proposes a new nomenclature: calling the first ruler Apollodotus I Soter and the second Apollodotus II Soter Philopator.

AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.