Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIX, 2004 THE END OF THE ROAD FOR THE INDO-GREEKS? BY Erik SELDESLACHTS (Ghent University) In about 246 BC, the rebelling satrap Diodotus made Bactria independent from the Seleucid Empire and became the first Graeco-Bactrian king1. His successor Diodotus II was dethroned by Euthydemus I (ca. 215-200 BC)2, who checked an attempt by the Seleucid emperor Antiochus III to regain the lost territory3. In the course of the second half of the second century BC, the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom was destroyed by invasions of Central Asian nomads4. Meanwhile, rulers of Graeco-Bactrian descent had estab- lished themselves in the Hindukush, Arachosia, Gandhara, and North West India. During the first century BC, these so-called Indo-Greeks struggled with swaying fortunes against invading Sakas and KuÒanas. Finally, around the beginning of our era, Indo-Parthian invaders crushed the last Indo-Greek kings5. Beyond this brief outline, the chronology and history of the Graeco-Bac- trians and Indo-Greeks is still utterly confused. The reconstructions by dif- ferent authors diverge widely and are mutually incompatible to such an extent that it looks as if they relate to different historical events. Of some forty two Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings known, only eight are found in ancient texts and inscriptions, the others only in coin legends, so 1 The rebellion was directed against Seleucus II or Antiochus II (Simonetta 1958: 155). 2 All the dates mentioned with kings in this paper are approximate regnal dates. 3 In ca. 208-206 BC, cf. Simonetta 1958: 156-157; Guillaume 1987: 12. 4 Justin, Epitome historiae Philippicae Pompei Trogi, Prologue to chapter 41: In Bactrianis autem rebus ut a Diodoto rege constitutum imperium est: deinde quo regnante Scythicae gentes Saraucae et Asiani Bactra occupavere et Sogdianos. The date of this conquest is still controversial. Probably it was carried out in several stages from ca. 135 BC onwards (cf. Posch 1995: 81-83 for an overview of the different datings; cf. also Simonetta 1957: 45; Bopearachchi 1990b: 71). 5 Hermaeus in Bagram (Simonetta 1958: 170; Narain 1957: 160,164) and Strato II and his son at Sagala (Bopearachchi 1990b: 62,62 n. 94). 250 E. SELDESLACHTS that historical reconstructions for the most part depend on the largely sub- jective interpretation of numismatic evidence6. O. Guillaume has thoroughly criticised the hypotheses based on such evidence in two major works on the Indo-Greeks, raising important questions of methodology in historiography7. The written sources on the Indo-Greeks, Greek, Latin, Indian, and Chi- nese, have been repeatedly examined in the past. Still, almost everything remains controversial, because the few relevant texts and inscriptions contain little or enigmatic information, are partly corrupted, or more liter- ary than historical in nature8. In spite of, or rather because of these short- comings, it seemed to me useful to reevaluate some of the conclusions drawn on the basis of Greek and Indian written evidence9. I set about this task with the aspiration to solve some of the problems by giving particu- lar attention to onomastic information, as this is crucial for a proper understanding of the texts. It turned out, however, that hardly any conclu- sion can be established with some amount of certainty, even when the information of written sources is combined with that of numismatics and archeology. Strabo and Justin on Eucratides, Demetrius II and Menander In his Geography, Strabo speaks about the Greeks in Bactria and India in two passages based on the lost work of the historian Apollodorus of Artemita. A first passage names Menander and Demetrius as the foremost of the kings who conquered more territory in India than Alexander10. 6 Cf. Guillaume 1987: 11-18. 7 Guillaume 1987 on Tarn 1951 and Narain 1957. 8 Of some Indian texts, the editions are hardly satisfactory. 9 Being incompetent in this domain, I have left out the Chinese texts. 10 Strabo 11.11.1 (my own translation, partly based on that of Jones 1954): tosoÕton dè ÷sxusan oï âpostßsantev ÊElljnev aût®n dià t®n âret®n t±v xÉrav, ¿ste t±v te ˆArian±v êpekrátoun kaì t¬n ˆInd¬n, ¿v ƒjsin ˆApol- lódwrov ö ˆArtemitjnóv, kaì pleíw ∂qnj katestrécanto Æ ˆAlézandrov, kaì málista Ménandrov (e÷ ge kaì tòn ÊUpanin diébj pròv ∏w kaì méxri toÕ ˆIsámou pro±lqe), tà mèn gàr aûtóv, tà dè Djmßtriov ö Eûqudßmou uïóv, toÕ Baktríwn basiléwv· où mónon dè t®n Pataljn®n katésxon, âllà kaì t±v ãlljv paralíav tßn te Saraóstou kalouménjn kaì t®n Sigérdidov basileían. THE END OF THE ROAD FOR THE INDO-GREEKS? 251 The Greeks who caused Bactria to revolt became so powerful thanks to the fertility of the country that they became masters of Ariana and also of India, as Apollodorus of Artemita says. And they subdued more peoples than Alexander, in particular Menander (if he really went further than the Hypanis and advanced to the Isam.s), so partly he and partly also Demetrius, the son of Euthydemus, the Bactrian king. They took not only Patalene, but also, of the other coastal areas, the kingdoms which are called that of Saraostus and that of Sigerdis. Previously, researchers used to take it for granted that Strabo intended the son of Euthydemus I, Demetrius I (ca. 200-182 BC)11, but nowadays it is mostly recognised that it can only be Demetrius II12. Demetrius I pos- sessed practically all that is now Afghanistan and Tajikistan, but he never made inroads into Indian territory beyond the Hindukush13. One need not assume that Strabo confused Demetrius II and Demetrius I, or that he was mistaken about the ancestry of Demetrius II, if one adopts the sequence according to which Demetrius I was followed on the throne by Euthyde- mus II14, who was followed in turn by his son Demetrius II. A.M. Simon- etta, however, assumes that Euthydemus II, having come to power around 182 BC, died young in ca. 175 BC, and that Demetrius II was his brother, who succeeded him in Bactria and the Central Asian plains, while his uncle Antimachus I inherited the throne in Arachosia and the Hindukush15. A second fragment from Strabo shows that already in Antiquity the his- tory of the Indo-Greeks was far less known in the West than that of Alexander the Great16. 11 E.G., Altheim 1947-48 II: 66; Tarn 1951: passim. Demetrius I as a son of Euthy- demus I is briefly refered to by Polybius, Historiae 11.34.8. 12 Cf. Narain 1957: 23-45; Simonetta 1958: 157-158. Kraay 1981 and Sidky 2000: 189-194 even postulate the existence of a third Demetrius. Demetrius II of Bactria has to be distinguished from the Seleucid Demetrius II Theos, an enemy of Mithridates. 13 Simonetta 1958: 157. 14 The existence of Euthydemus II has been doubted, but is conclusively established by F.L. Holt 2000. 15 Simonetta 1958: 157-158. 16 Strabo, Geographica 15.1.3 transl. Jones 1954: 5). Kaì m®n oûdˆ oï polloì pollo⁄v xrónoiv Àsteron suggrácantév ti êpì toútwn, oûdˆ oï nÕn pléontev êke⁄se, âpoƒaínontaí ti âkribév. ˆApolló- dwrov goÕn ö tà Parqikà poißsav, memnjménov kaì t¬n t®n Baktrian®n 252 E. SELDESLACHTS Moreover, most of those who have written anything about this region in much later times, and those who sail there at the present time, do not present any accurate information either. At any rate, Apollodorus who wrote the Parthika, when he mentions the Greeks who caused Bactri- ana to revolt from the Syrian kings who succeeded Seleucus Nicator, says that when those kings had grown in power they also attacked India, but he reveals nothing further than that what was already known, and even contradicts what was known, saying that those kings subdued more of Indian than the Macedonians; that Eucratides, at any rate, held a thousand cities as his subjects. Those other writers, how- ever, say that merely the tribes between the Hydaspes and the Hypanis were nine in number, and that they had five thousand cities, no one of which was smaller than the Meropian Cos, and that Alexander subdued the whole of this country and gave it over to Porus. The alleged contradiction between Apollodorus and earlier historians involves only two imprecise assessments of the number of cities occupied by the Graeco-Bactrian king Eucratides on the one hand and Alexander the Great on the other hand. Strabo refers to the easternmost region conquered by Alexander in India, the territory between the rivers Hydaspes (Jhelum) and Hypanis (Beas), but gives no concrete indication on the territory occupied by Eucratides or any other Graeco-Bactrian or Indo-Greek king. The Eucratides refered to by Strabo is Eucratides I, who occupies a cen- tral place in the reconstruction of Indo-Greek chronology thanks to the syn- chronism provided by Justin with Mithridates (Mithradates) I of Parthia: At about the same time as Mithridates in Parthia, Eucratides came to power in Bactria, both of them great men17. âpostjsántwn ¨Ellßnwn parà t¬n Suriak¬n basiléwn t¬n âpò Seleúkou toÕ Nikátorov, ƒjsì mèn aûtoùv aûzjqéntav êpiqésqai kaì t±ç ˆIndik±ç· oûdèn dè prosanakalúptei t¬n próteron êgnwsménwn, âllà kaì ênanti- ologe⁄, pleíw t±v ˆIndik±v êkeínouv Æ Makedónav katastrécasqai légwn. Eûkratídan goÕn póleiv xilíav üƒˆ ëaut¬ç ∂xein· êke⁄noi dé ge aûtà metazù ∂qnj toÕ te ¨Udáspou kaì toÕ ¨Upániov tòn âriqmòn ênnéa, póleiv te sxe⁄n pentakisxilíav, ˜n mjdemían e¤nai K¬ t±v Meropídov êlattw· taútjn dè p¢san t®n xÉran katastrecámenon ˆAlézandron paradoÕnai PÉrwç. 17 Epitome historiae Philippicae Pompei Trogi 41.6.4: Eodem ferme tempore, sicut in Parthis Mithridates, ita in Bactris Eucratides, magni uterque viri, regna ineunt.