The Diodotus Coins
Summary
Lahiri investigates the numismatic evidence for the Bactrian kings Diodotus I and II. Justin’s account records that Diodotus, governor of Bactria, rebelled against the Seleucids and was succeeded by a son of the same name, but his chronology is inconsistent and difficult to reconcile. Lahiri reviews scholarly attempts to date and distinguish the two rulers using coins. He describes a primary coin type featuring a diademed king’s head with Zeus hurling a thunderbolt on the reverse; some specimens include a wreath. Cunningham attributed wreathless coins to Diodotus I and those with wreath to Diodotus II. However, Gardner argued that all coins bearing Diodotus’ name were issued by one king and noted similarities with coins of Antiochus II, suggesting continuity in portraiture. Sallet agreed that the portraits on Diodotus and Antiochus coins were identical but also assigned both series to Diodotus, interpreting Zeus as a personal badge. Macdonald concluded that coins naming Antiochus and Diodotus were struck by Diodotus II and that Diodotus I did not issue coins in his own name. Lahiri examines other coin types with heads of Antiochus and reverses featuring a horned horse or Apollo on a rock. He emphasises that careful analysis of legends, monograms and iconography is essential for assigning coins to the correct ruler.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Lahiri shows that the chronology of the Diodotid kings cannot be resolved by literary sources alone; numismatic evidence is indispensable. By comparing coin types and reviewing scholarly debates, he argues that coins once attributed to Antiochus may actually have been issued by Diodotus to prepare subjects for a change of power. The study illustrates how portraits, legends and monograms inform historical attribution and cautions against simplistic assignments.