The End of Greek Rule in Soghd. Early Euthydemus Imitations from Bukhara

The End o G eek Rule in Soghd. Ea ly Eu hydemus Imi a ions om Bukha a Aleksand Nayma k ABSTRACT The composi ion o he inds o Hellenis ic coins in Sogdiana sugges ha G eeks los con ol o e his coun- y du ing o igh a e he e ol o Eu hydemus (ca. 230–226 BCE). Ye he s anda d ype o he Bukha an imi a ions o Eu hydemus’ e ad achms, on which mode n schola s base hei da es o “Sogdian indepen- dence”, was min ed a ound he ime o Bac a siege– he peak o he eas e n anabasis o An iochus III (ca. 206 BCE). In o he wo ds, he e is agap o some 20 o 30 yea s be ween he da es de i ed om wo di e en ca ego ies o numisma ic e idence. The cu en a icle emo es his seeming con adic ion by p esen ing, ch onologically a anging, and linking o hei p o o ypes ase ies o Bukha an imi a ions ha ep oduces he ea ly ypes o Eu hydemus’ e ad achms. This numisma ic da a allows he au ho o da e he collapse o he G eek ule in Soghd o 230–226 BCE. KEY WORDS Bukha a; Soghd; Bac ia; G eeks; Hellenis ic; Diodo us; Eu hydemus; An iochus III; coins; e ad achms; imi a ions. THE PROBLEM The a chaeological explo a ion o he e i o y o ancien Soghd (Sogdiana, Sogdia) s a ed in 1874, i.e., exac ly 150 yea s ago, when Majo Bo zenko conduc ed he i s ama eu exca a- ions on A asiab (Shishkin 1969, 10–12). In 1934, he S a e Academy o Ma e ial Cul u e o he USSR o ganized he i s p o essionally led a chaeological expedi ion o he Za a shan Valley (Yakubo skii 1940). And ye , despi e he la ge olume o a chaeological wo ks conduc ed by So ie , local, and in e na ional expedi ions on he e i o y o ancien Soghd o such along pe iod o ime, we s ill ha e e y li le a chaeological– and p ac ically no epig aphic– ma e i- als pe aining o he Hellenis ic pe iod o he coun y’shis o y. As a esul , all ecen schola ly econs uc ions o he poli ical and cul u al his o y o Soghd om he la e 4 h o he middle o he 2nd cen u y BCE s ill ely on he ew sca e ed e e ences in su i ing Classical sou c- es. The sca ci y and ambigui y o his in o ma ion esul ed in se e al comple ely di e gen iews on he s a us o his coun y in he 3 d cen u y BCE (Nayma k 2005, 116–118; Nayma k 2008, 56, oo no e 4). I comes as no su p ise, hen, ha numisma ic ma e ials ha e become he p incipal his o ical sou ce o his pe iod o Sogdian his o y. The da e o he collapse o G eek con ol o e Soghd is jus one o anumbe o impo an ques ions ha could no be answe ed on he basis o w i en sou ces bu can be cla i ied by he analysis o coins inds. The e a e wo majo ca ego ies o numisma ic ma e ials ha а e ele an o his discussion. The inds o Hellenis ic coppe in he lands o ancien Soghd cons i u e he i s ca ego y. Coppe coinage had a iducia y na u e and Hellenis ic chalkoi, wi h hei negligeable in in- sic alue, we e no likely o be accep ed beyond he geog aphic limi s o he G eek au ho i y STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2, 85–107 86 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2 esponsible o hei min ing. The his o y o money, o cou se, p o ides us wi h mul iple excep ions o such “ ules” as he limi ed ci cula ion o oken cu ency. Ye , each o hese “ab- no mal” cases esul s om awhole se o special ci cums ances, none o which was in place in Soghd du ing he 3 d cen u y BCE.1 In o he wo ds, he inds o Hellenis ic coppe can help us o de ine he e i o ial and ch onological ex en o he G eek p esence in Soghd (Zeymaľ 1978, 196–197; Nayma k 2001, 33–36; Nayma k 2005, 135–137). Re ising he lis o inds o Hellenis ic coins in Soghd wo decades ago (Nayma k 2005, 129–134), Isugges ed ha : 1) du ing he Seleucid and Diodo id epoch bo h sil e and coppe o hese dynas ies ci cula ed in he coun y, while 2) s a ing wi h he eign o Eu hydemus and down o he end o he G aeco -Bac ian epoch we see almos exclusi ely sil e coins (Nayma k 2005, 136). I led me o belie e ha he G eeks los con ol o e Soghd igh be o e, du ing, o immedia ely a e he so -called “ e ol o Eu hydemus” (Nayma k 2008, 56, oo no e 4). Many mo e inds o Hellenis ic coins egis e ed in Sogdiana since hen con i m his heo y (Nayma k– Yako le 2011a; 2011b; A akhodjhae 2013a; 2013b; 2019; 2021; Nayma k 2014; 2016; Go in 2014; 2015). The gene al cou se o e en s can be econs uc ed as ollows. The ela i ely abundan inds o coppe min ed unde An iochus Iand II sugges ha he Seleucids main ained con ol o e Soghd h oughou he i s hal o he 3 d cen u y. Acco ding o na a i e sou ces, by he end o he eign o An iochus II (261–246 BC), wo Cen al Asian sa aps, And ago as in Pa hia and Diodo us in Bac ia, seceded wi h hei p o inces om he Seleucid kingdom. F om he geog aphic poin o iew, i is absolu ely impossible ha Soghd emained aSeleucid possession a e he loss o bo h Bac ia and Pa hia, since hese kingdoms we e si ua ed be ween Soghd and he cen e s o Seleucid powe in I an, Mesopo amia, and Sy ia. As o he ac ual des iny o Soghd, only h ee op ions we e possible: 1) he coun y’seli es gained independence; 2) he coun y was occupied by he nomads om he no h; and 3) con ol o e Sogdiana passed om Seleucids o hei successo s in he eas , he G eeks o Bac ia. The cu en ly a ailable numisma ic e idence– i.e., he ai ly nume ous inds o Diodo id coppe and he lack o local compa ible coinage– unambiguously sugges ha he coun y emained unde he sway o Bac ian G eeks. I appea s, howe e , ha he si ua ion d ama ically changed by he ime o he so -called e ol o Eu hydemus– Sogdian soil yielded p ac ically no coppe o his king. This cons i- u es as a k con as wi h he composi ion o numisma ic inds on he si es o neighbou ing 1 The e we e a leas h ee cases in he his o y o Cen al Asia when o eign coppe was accommoda ed en masse by local ci cula ion: 1) Roman AE4 o he 4 h and ea ly 5 h cen u ies CE in Ma w (Hobbs 1995, 97–102; Nayma k 2012, 36–37), 2) Byzan ine anonymous olles in Fe ghana and Semi ech’e a he end o he 11 h cen u y CE (Nayma k 2012, 31–36), and 3) e o m coppe kopeks o Alexei Mikhailo ich in Tu kes an and Sai am a ea (E zako ich 1986, 51–54). In all h ee cases we see a e y speci ic si ua ion on he ecei ing end: he se e e de ici o p ecious me als in ci cula ion and a emp s o compensa e i by he massi e ou pu o poo ly (and, some imes, p i a ely) min ed local coppe . As o he dono coun ies, he ou low o coins om hem happened in imes when he huge masses o hei p e iously o e p oduced coppe we e se e ely de alued on he ma ke o e en o bidden o ci cula e al oge he . In o de o make he long -dis ance a el o coppe coins p o i able, 1) he p ice o hese coins in dono coun ies + 2) anspo a ion cos s + 3) some ma gin o p o i o he me chan s esponsible o he ope a ion should equal he cos o he p oduc ion o coins om he coppe a ailable on he ma ke s o he ecei ing coun y. Also c ucial o success would be he secu i y o ade ou es. No doub , phenomena o his ype could only occu du ing c ises in he coun ies wi h de eloped mone a y economies. Sogdiana o he 3 d cen u y BCE de ini ely did no belong o his ca ego y. 87ALEKSANDR NAYMARK Bac ia, whe e Eu hydemus’ coppe o ms one o he wo la ges g oups, compe ing o he i s place wi h he coinage o Euc a ides (Be na d 1985; R eladze– Go in 2015; Go in– D u echenskaya 2018). In o he wo ds, he composi ion o he inds o Hellenis ic coins in Soghd sugges s ha Bac ian G eeks los hei e i o ial possessions in his coun y a ound he ime o Eu hydemus’ en h onemen , i.e., some ime be ween 230 and 224 BCE. The second ca ego y o numisma ic da a ha can be used as e idence o he collapse o G eek con ol is he imi a i e sil e p oduced by h ee Sogdian min s ha eme ged a e his e en (Nayma k 2008; Nayma k 2022, ig. 1). In ac , he majo i y o his o ical and numis- ma ic s udies employ he da e o “Sogdian independence” de i ed om he s udy o Sogdian imi a ional issues. Since he imes o Alo e de la Fuye, i has been a i m con ic ion in schol- a ly li e a u e ha Sogdian imi a ions o he e ad achms o Eu hydemus ep oduced one o he la e ypes in his king’scoinage. Combining his obse a ion wi h he sca ce in o ma ion o w i en sou ces, schola s usually assume ha he Bac ian G eeks los con ol o e Soghd du ing o soon a e he eas e n campaign o An iochus III, i.e. a he e y end o Eu hyde- mus’ eign. In absolu e da es his would be he sho span be ween 206 BCE, when he siege o Bac a ended, and 200 BCE– he yea o which schola ly opinion commonly a ibu es he demise o Eu hydemus. The e is adisc epancy o some 20–30 yea s be ween he da es based on hese wo ca e- go ies o numisma ic e idence. Could i esul om agap in he his o y o local mone a y ci cula ion? O , o pu i di e en ly: could he e be acoinless pe iod in he his o y o Bukha a? Such ascena io seems a he unlikely– i is ha d o belie e ha acoun y once exposed o he bene i s o mone a y ci cula ion would plunge in o amoneyless s a e igh a e he depa u e o G eeks. Meanwhile, he e a e no inds ha could ill up his p esumed mone a y acuum. These conside a ions b ing us o he immedia e pu pose o his a icle, which is mean o close his yawning gap be ween wo da es de i ed om wo di e en ca ego ies o coins by mobilizing an o e looked and misin e p e ed local imi a i e se ies. Be o e discussing Bukha an coins, howe e , Ishould men ion he e wo heo ies based on o he numisma ic ma e ials. One o hem was pu o wa d by An a A akhodjae , who sugges ed ha c ab/bee coppe s wi h he name o An iochus, i e o which ha e been ound in Sama qand Soghd, should be da ed o he ime o he anabasis o An iochusIII. In his ini- ial publica ions, A akhodjae hesi a ed o assign hese coins o apa icula min and named a ious possibili ies om he Island o Kos o Susa, and o Sama qand (A akhodjae , 2013a, 233–240; A akhodjae 2013b, 262–272). La e he accep ed he idea o na owing he a ibu ion o his ype o Sama qand (Nayma k 2014; Go in 2014; 2015) bu emained con inced ha hese coins we e min ed unde An iochus III (A akhodjae 2019, 262–272; A akhodjae , 2021, 37–48). The accep ance o such ada e, howe e , c ea es asigni ican ch onological gap be ween c ab/bee coins and he la es Hellenis ic chalkoi ound in Sogdiana (Diodo id cop- pe ). A akhodjae smoo hed his con adic ion assuming ha c ab/bee coins we e p oduced by a“mili a y” min o An iochus du ing his in asion o Bac ia and Sogdiana. Ido no ag ee wi h his idea and emain con inced, as adecade ago (Nayma k 2014), ha he c ab/bee coins we e p oduced by he min o Sama qand du ing he eigns o An iochus Io II. Ye we do no need o dis ac om ou main opic he e o deal wi h his in e es ing issue, as a ansi o y issue om a“mili a y” min would no change much in ou o hcoming discussion. The second heo y was o ged in he 1940s by N.N. Zabelina, who sugges ed ha one o he ea ly Sogdian coins imi a ing d achms o An iochus ca ied he name o Eu hydemus (Zabelina 1949). Using his obse a ion, he schola buil apic u e o asepa a e G aeco- -Sogdian kingdom o Sogdiana uled by Eu hydemus p io o his “ e ol ” and consequen en h onemen in Bac ia. EugeneV. Zeymaľ pu his idea o es by showing ha he dis o ed 88 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2 le e s on his single specimen om he collec ion o he Sama qand Museum acciden ally looked almos like he se e ely unca ed name o Eu hydemus (Zeymaľ 1983b, 84–85; Zeymaľ 1983c, 68, 160, pl. XVIII:17). In he 1990s, howe e , Je ey Le ne esu ec ed Zabelina’s heo y and buil a ound his numisma ic “ ac ” awhole cons uc ion o “indi ec e idence” de i ed om w i en sou ces (Le ne 1993; 1996; 1999). Du ing he qua e o acen u y ha passed since Le ne ’slas publica ion, he numbe o ea ly An iochus imi a ions a ailable o s udy inc eased d ama ically and i is e en mo e clea now ha he dis o ed le e ing on his single specimen acqui ed apa ial esemblance o he name Eu hydemus by ame e chance. Ne e - heless, Zabelina -Le ne ’s heo y ound an eage suppo e in Al iya A. Musakae a, who ini- ially simply ci ed hese schola s, bu ecen ly wen u he and e ised he en i e ypology o Eu hydemus e ad achms on he basis o he coins o he Tokhmach - epe hoa d (R eladze 1983; Ku bano – Niyazo a 1989) and he specimens om he collec ion o Tashken Museum (i.e. some 60 coins al oge he ). Acco ding o he , Eu hydemus uled and min ed e ad achms in Soghd s a ing in he middle o he 3 d cen u y, i.e. pa allel o Diodo us and his o sp ing(s) who, du ing he same decades, con olled Bac ia (Musakae a 2014, 229–232). Ido no hink we can a o d he e any kind o c i ical assessmen o he la e heo y. COINAGE IN SOGHD AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF GREEK POWER: GENERAL REMARKS The na u e o he local coinages ha illed he mone a y acuum a e he collapse o G eek con ol o e Soghd p omp s se e al en a i e conclusions abou he iden i y o he new mas e s o he coun y. They issued imi a i e se ies, ha neglec ed bo h aes he ic and p oc- lama i e aspec s o Hellenis ic coin ypes. Such ap o ile would ha dly i local G eeks o he ep esen a i es o he old Sogdian a is oc acy who we e well acquain ed wi h he adi ions o Hellenis ic coinage. These eli es li ed abou h ee qua e s o acen u y unde Seleucid and Diodo id ule, when he coun y had amone a y economy and e en p oduced coins i sel (A akhodjae 2013; 2021; Nayma k 2014; Go in 2014; 2015). I seems a mo e plausible ha he new ule s we e nomadic chie ains who managed o cap u e he no he n p o ince o he G aeco -Bac ian s a e du ing he u moil caused by he change o dynas y and he accession o Eu hydemus. I is qui e possible ha hese we e he e y same nomads whom Eu hydemus desc ibed as ag ea h ea o his kingdom while alking o Teleas acouple o decades la e (Polybius xi, 34).2 On he o he hand, he same numisma ic ma e ial lea es no doub ha he seden a y pop- ula ion o Soghd e ained an in e es in he mone a y economy– a leas h ee di e en p in- cipali ies (Sama kand, Bukha a, and Kesh) began o min hei own coins almos immedia ely a e he all o he G eek powe (Zeymaľ 1978, 201, pl. ii and iii; Zeymaľ 1983a, 244–245, pl. 19–21; Zeymaľ 1983b, 77–92, pl. 9; Zeymaľ 1983c, 68–78, 160–162, pl. x iii–xx; Nayma k 2008; Nayma k 2022, ig. 1). Mo eo e , as E.V. Zeymaľ has shown, Sama kand min ed An iochus imi a ions in h ee denomina ions: d achm, hemid achm, and obol (Zeymaľ 1983c, 68–75; Zeymaľ 1983b, 81–92). This lea es no doub ha we a e dealing wi h a“ma ke ” coin mean o mee he needs o ade eloped ade and economy, and no jus wi h p oclama i e issues o he new nomadic mas e s o he coun y. The composi ion o he inds o Hellenis ic coins in he e i o y o Soghd makes i clea ha he G eeks los all h ee majo pa s o he coun y simul aneously. And ye he da es o 2 The mos ecen discussion o he possible iden i y o hese nomads see in Mo is 2023, 170–179. 89ALEKSANDR NAYMARK he p o o ypes chosen by he new ule s o Soghd o hei coins sp ead o e many decades: he p incipali y o Kesh min ed coins wi h he ypes o Alexande and he ule s o Sama - kand op ed o he d achmas o he Seleucid king An iochus ISo e , whe eas in he Bukha a oasis, hey decided o ep oduce he appea ance o he e ad achms o he con empo a y G eco -Bac ian king Eu hydemus. I appea s ha he ea ly coins chosen as p o o ypes by he ule s o Kesh and Sama qand possessed some special au ho i y on he Sogdian ma ke due o acomplex blend o poli ical and economic easons. Iam planning o add ess his ques ion in asepa a e pape , meanwhile i is su icien o say ha all h ee pos -G eek Sogdian coinages s a ed a abou he same ime, igh a e he collapse o G eek powe . As he goal o cu en pape is limi ed o he ques ion o he da e o he collapse o G eek powe , we will deal he e wi h he Bukha an coinage only: as he ch onological gap be ween he e ad achms o Eu hydemus and hei imi a ions was he sho es among he h ee ea ly Sogdian imi a ion coinages, his imi a i e se ies gi es us amuch be e chance o econs uc he poli ical si ua ion o he ime. BRIEF HISTORY OF STUDY AND THE LOCALIZATION OF EUTHYDEMUS IMITATIONS Bukha an imi a ions o Eu hydemus’ e ad achms i s appea ed in he pages o aschola ly publica ion in 1822, i.e., o e wo cen u ies ago (Köhle 1850, 5–6). E idence o he o igin o he se ies a i ed on he scene only a ew yea s la e : i s Thomas Ch is ian Tychsen published specimens om he collec ion b ough om Bukha a by Geo ge on Meyendo , amembe o he Russian embassy o he Bukha an Khana e in 1820 (Tychsen 1828, 5–10, Ta . Ab . iii: N. g aeci), and hen James P incep p esen ed mo e examples o his se ies acqui ed by Alexande Bu nes du ing his ip o he same ci y in 1832 (P incep 1834, 464–466; Bu nes 1834, pl. “Bac- ian and o he coins”). Rega ding one o he la e specimens Ho ace Hayman Willson w o e: “This coin may, pe haps, be e e ed o one o he i s ba ba ic p inces who subdued Sogdiana, i no Bac ia P ope , and adop ed he de ice o he Bac ian coins” (Willson 1834, 460). Some o he la e ague epo s, howe e , blu ed his ini ially clea pic u e ( o example: Ses ini 1831, 112, ci ing S ua ), and ano he 60 yea s had passed un il aschola ly publica ion a i ma i ely na owed he o igin o he imi a ions o Eu hydemus’ e ad achms o Sogdiana (D oin 1893). I ook almos hal acen u y mo e be o e he disco e y o a ai ly la ge hoa d composed solely o such coins p omp ed he u he na owing o his a ibu ion down o he Bukha an oasis (Masson 1940). Wi h addi ional in o ma ion abou a ew ind spo s o such coins in he Bukha an oasis p esen ed by VadimM. Masson (Masson 1954, 87; Masson 1955, 41), Vasilii A. Shishkin (1963, 47), and Yahya G. Guliamo (1958, 22) he a ibu ion o his imi a ional se ies o he Bukha an oasis u ned in o es ablished ac in Russian numisma ic li e a u e (Zeymaľ 1978, 201; Zeymaľ 1983, 245, pl. 19; Zeymaľ– Niki in– Koshelenko 1985, 431, pl. cxliii; Zeimal 1996, 362, 363, 366, 367; R eladze– Musakae a 1986, 35–38; R e- ladze 1987, 130, no 37; R eladze 1990, 180; R eladze 1999, 30–31; R eladze 2002, 24, 30; Musakae a 1990, 20; Musakae a 1991; Musakae a 2014, 7–19, 48–113, 263, 264; Nayma k 1991, 163; Nayma k 2008, 62–68; Smi no a 2005, 165). Mos schola ly, popula , and comme cial publica ions in o he Eu opean languages, howe - e , con inued o a ibu e hese coins o he Yuezhi, o Soghd in gene al (Kingdom o Sogdiana and Yuezhi p incipali ies in Sogdiana), o e en mo e speci ically o Sama qand (Göbl 1978, Ta . 113; Mi chine 1973, 26–43, pl. IV–VI; Mi chine 1975, 284, 287–294; Mi chine 1978, 274–276, 386–387; Al am 1986, 281; Senio 2001, 217). I was only in 1985 ha Paul Be na d wi h a e - 90 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2 e ence o Zeymaľ men ioned ha : “Les numisma es so ié iques si uen la p oduc ion de ces imissions dans l’oasis de Bukha a” (Be na d 1985, 150). Osmund Bopea achchi ollowed him in his espec , bu , ne e heless, made p ac ically no use o he “So ie ” li e a u e in ques ion and s ill ied o apply ahis o ical econs uc ion based on hese coins o he en i e coun y o Soghd (Bopea achchi 1990, 30–31; Bopea achchi 1991b, 12–13). Mo e ecen ly, he wo k by Bopea achchi in luenced Michael Mi chine , who econside ed his coinage in he la es o his compendiums and linked i o Bukha a (Mi chine 2004, 540–546). S ill, dis inguishing wo lines o Eu hydemus’ imi a ions, Mi chine assigned o Sama qand ag oup o imi a ions eplica ing ea ly e ad achms o he king, which he called he “mino ” se ies. Besides some gene al conside a ions, he only jus i ica ion o his a ibu ion was Rudolph Hoe nle’swo k o 1899, in which Eu hydemus imi a ions a e placed b oadly in he Sama qand -Tashken a ea (Hoe nle 1898). Hoe nle’sin o ma ion, howe e , was ecei ed om collec o s who pu chased coins in Sama qand and Tashken , i.e. in wo ci ies o Russian Tu kes an wi h an iqua ian ma ke s. Mo eo e , i does no e e o ea ly e ad achms speci ically. As a as Ican judge, Joe C ibb was he i s among “Wes e n” schola s o a ibu e Eu hydemus imi a ions a i m- a i ely o Bukha a (C ibb 2008, 350). In ecen yea s, howe e , he Bukha an o igin o his coinage became uni e sally accep ed, as i was adop ed by he eam unning Zeno. u, he magni icen da abase ha became he p incipal poin o e e ence o he communi y o people in e es ed in o ien al numisma ics. Ye he o ma o he da abase is no mean o p o ide a gumen a ion o he localiza ions o coin se ies and hus he a ibu ion o ou Bukha an coinage u ned o be “hanging in ai ”. In o de o close his ques ion, Iwould like o p o ide he e he lis o egis e ed inds o such coins. FIND SPOTS OF BUKHARAN COINS A leas ou coins wi h he ype o Eu hydemus’ e ad achms came om he si e o Va akhsha and om he adjacen zone: h ee coins ga he ed du ing he wo ks o Shishkin’sexpedi ion a e now held in he collec ion o he Ins i u e o A chaeology, Sama qand (Coin cabine nos. 669, 1015, 1115);3 one mo e specimen ound i s way o he Tashken Museum.4 Mo e ecen ly, Al iya A. Musakae a published nine coins om he p i a e collec ion o Alexei Nu ullae – an en husias om S e dlo /Jondo dis ic in he p o ince o Bukha a– as he inds om he en i ons o Va akhsha (Musakae a 2014, ab.6: 1–2, 9: 3–4, 10: 1, 3–4, 12: 2, 21: 2). This p o enance in o ma ion, howe e , should be unde s ood in a a he b oad sense: judging om my in e ac ion wi h Alexei, his de ini ion o “Va akhsha a ea” included he en i e sou he n and cen al “ la es” o he lands o ancien i iga ion on he wes e n inges o he Bukah an oasis. 3 Elena A. Da ido ich lis ed no. 1115 as agenuine e ad achm o Eu hydemus (Da ido ich 1956, 155). This a ibu ion was accep ed by Vasilii A. Shishkin (1963, 47) and Tama a S. E naza o a (1974, 170). Paul Be na d, howe e , exp essed his doub s abou his a ibu ion, sugges ing ha his coin migh ha e been an imi a ion o Eu hydemus’ e ad achm (Be na d 1985, 139, n. 1). Indeed, my isual examina ion o his specimen in he collec ion o he Sama qand ins i u e o A chaeology (Coin Cabine , no. 1115, collec ion 5, no. 1) con i med ha i was an ea ly imi a ion (Nayma k 2005, 128). Al iya A. Musakae a quali ied my “ e ision” o he ini ial a ibu ion as a“s ange s o y” (Musa- kae a 2014, 17, beginning o he las pa ag aph). She p o ided, howe e , no c i ical basis o his nega i e assessmen o my e -a ibu ion, and he sel included he e y same specimen in o he ca ego y o imi a ions in he e y same book o he s (Musakae a 2014, 291, ab.3). 4 Ace ain ci izen Rubo ound i nea he “ o ess Va akhsha -kuduk” in 1949 (Musakae a 1990, 20, no. 29; Musakae a 2014, ab.16, no. 4, 342). 91ALEKSANDR NAYMARK Du ing he las wo and ahal decades, Ihea d se e al mo e epo s om p i a e collec- o s abou inds o Eu hydemus imi a ions in he Va akhsha a ea. Un o una ely, mos o his in o ma ion was nei he speci ic enough no could be subs an ia ed by he “physically exis ing” coins o hei images.5 Six mo e inds o Eu hydemus imi a ions come om he speci ic si es si ua ed on he wes e n inges o he Bukha a oasis. One specimen was eco ded om Qala -iMallyabek (Guliamo 1958, 22) while ano he one comes om Kampi ak - epe. 6 In 2002, Tashken collec o Vladimi Shagalo in o med me ha wo imi a ions o Eu hydemus we e picked up in he la e 1990s om ap esen day su ace a adis ance o 70–100 me e s om he si e o Tall -iSubuk - epa.7 One specimen was said o be ound in Rami an si ua ed o he no h -wes o Bukha a (Masson 1954, 87) and ano he one was ound du ing he a chaeological wo ks on Kyzyl -qy in he no he n sec ion o he wes e n bo de o he oasis (Guliamo 1956, 160; Niľsen 1959, 77, oo no e 17; Suleimano 1979, 18).8 5 One should be ex emely cau ious e en wi h some o he “well illus a ed” claims abou he inds o Hellenis ic coins in Soghd. Fo example, alabel o one o he coins illus a ed in Musakae a’sbook says: “pho o om in e ne , supposedly ound on Va akhsha?” (Musakae a 2014, 305, pl. 17:1, 342). Ido no know wha he sou ce o his p o enance in o ma ion was, bu he image i sel is aken om Zeno (no. 140448), whe e i came om a“Sogdia” a icle in Wikipedia (unless Musakae a bo owed his pho o di ec ly om he la e ). Meanwhile, he cap ion supplied o he Wikipedia image says: “Cabine des Medailles. Pe sonal pho og aph 2006.” In eali y, howe e , hese a e he ob e se and he e e se o wo di e en specimens om he collec ion o he Biblio hèque Na ionale de F ance, which we e on display in 2006, when hey we e pho og aphed o Wikipedia. Cabine de Medailles i sel does no ha e any in o ma ion abou he ind spo s o hese wo specimens. I is no ewo hy ha Musakae a had al eady ep oduced bo h coins wi h hei ac ual e e ses and ob e ses in he e y same monog aph o he s (Musakae a 2014, 306, pl. 18: 2; 312, pl. 24: 1) using images om an old publica ion in Re ue Numisma ique (Allo e de la Fuye 1910, pl. iii: 2 and 3). 6 Unpublished. Found du ing he su ey conduc ed by he a chaeological eam o he Moscow Mu- seum o O ien al A in 1987 and esides in his ins i u ion. 7 No pho os we e a ailable a ha ime, bu in his message Shagallo desc ibed hese specimens as ca ying a“simple po ai – no he Bukha an one”, he la e appa en ly being he e e ence o he la e “king in ia a” ype. Acco ding o Shishkin, who isi ed he Subbuk - epe si e in 1937 and epo ed ha “ he e was ag ea a ie y o po e y agmen s on he su ace o he si e”, and ha in gene al hey belonged “ o he same ypes as hose on Va akhsha” (Shishkin 1940, 22). Va akhsha se ed as abo de o ess om he 3 d cen u y BCE o he 1 s cen u y CE, and hen en e ed ape iod o se e e decline, when li e con inued only on he cen al ele a ion (i anywhe e) (Nayma k– A akhodjae 2023, 164–165). The si e was esu ec ed in he 5 h cen u y CE and acqui ed special impo ance s a ing wi h he e y end o he 7 h cen u y, when Va dan Khuda Kanuk usu ped he h one o Bukha a and buil o himsel apalace a Va akhsha (Nayma k 2003). 8 Shishkin and ollowing him Abdullaha R. Mukhamedzhano men ioned wo inds o Eu hydemus imi a ions om his si e (Shishkin 1963, 229; Mukhamedzhano 1978, 81; Kuľ u a 1983, 32). Un- o una ely, i is impossible o check he co ec ness o hese s a emen s: he cu en loca ion o his/ hese specimen(s) is unknown, jus as he e is no in o ma ion abou whe eabou s o any o he coins ound in he cou se o Guliamo ’sexpedi ions. As he o iginal publica ions o he exca a ion ma e ials desc ibed only one specimen, i is likely ha Shishkin’s(and consequen ly Mukhamed- zhano ’s) men ion o wo coins was p obably he esul o con usion. I is no ewo hy ha he p eceding pa ag aph o Shishkin’sbook also men ions wo o iginal e ad achms o Eu hydemus om Va akhsha and in doing so con adic s page 49 o he e y same publica ion, which epo s asingle ind. In any case, we can abs ain he e om he inal solu ion o his p oblem, as o ou cu en pu poses he ac ual numbe o coins ound on each si e has only seconda y impo ance. I is mos ly he p esence o such coins in he Kyzyl -ky a ea ha ma e s, because we a e in e es ed he e mainly in he geog aphic dis ibu ion o inds. 92 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2 Fou mo e Eu hydemus imi a ions came om wo sepa a e small oases si ua ed o he sou h o Bukha a: wo om Paykand (Adylo 2000, 26, 116, ig. 28; O che 2011, ig. 112: 7–8; Omeľchenko 2011, 48–49) and wo om Qum -So an (Nayma k 1991, 163, no. 241). 9 One mo e specimen was ound du ing he exca a ions o Kyzyl - epe bu ial g ounds si ua ed o he no h -eas o Bukha a (Obeľchenko 1974, 206; Obeľchenko 1992, 53, 127 and ill.). To sum up, al oge he 24 s ay inds o such coins we e eco ded om si es si ua ed along he inges o he Bukha an oasis. Finally, we should e u n he e o he a o emen ioned hoa d, which was said o consis o some 100 specimens. The ja wi h he hoa d was ound in he all o 1937 on he ancien si e Tal -iMu dapa ow by he i iga o s s aigh ening he bed o Shah ud canal. This ind spo lies in he e y hea o he oasis, jus a ew kilome e s o he eas o he ci y o Bukha a i sel (Masson 1940). The coins we e dispe sed, bu wi hin he au umn o 1937 he Bukha an mu- seum was able o acqui e i e po ions o i s coins om di e en indi iduals (al oge he 86 specimens). In Feb ua y o 1939, Sama qand Museum pu chased wo mo e specimens om ace ain G.F. No oselo in Bukha a ( he documen s associa ed wi h his acquisi ion s a e ha hese coins we e ound “nea Bukha an Shi abuddin by awo ke om Shah uds oi” (Zeimaľ 1990, 14–16). Tashken Museum also acqui ed one specimen om ace ain “ci izen I ano ”, who ela ed ha i was ound “in he a ea o Sha a uddin/Shi abuddin”, which in conjunc ion wi h he ype and condi ion o his specimen makes i mo e han likely o be om he e y same hoa d (Musakae a 1990, 20, no. 32; Musakae a 2014, ab.25, no. 11, 343). I is also possible ha one mo e specimen ended up in Dushanbe Museum (Zabelina 1952, 76, no. 5, 81, pl. I, no. 4). In o he wo ds, al oge he 89 o 90 coins su i ed om he o iginal ind ha was epo ed o con ain abou 100 pieces (Zeimaľ 1990, 13). All su i ing coins o his hoa d belong o he e minal s age o he Bukha an imi a ional coinage. One u he episode in he his o y o his hoa d was de ec ed by EugeneV. Zeimaľ: 12 o he specimens ha o iginally belonged o he Bukha an museum e en ually ound hei way o he Pushkin Museum o Fine A s in Moscow (Zeimaľ 1990, 14–16; see also: Ku bano 2001, 92–93). The po ion o he hoa d p ese ed in he Bukha an Museum (74 specimens) was asubjec o ap elimina y publica ion (R eladze– Musakae a 1986, 35–38).10 In o de o s eng hen he a gumen a ion p o Bukha an a ibu ion, Ishould men ion he e ha no inds o such coins ha e been egis e ed in o he pa s o Soghd.11 The comple e lack o such inds in he middle and uppe Za a shan alley as well as in he basin o Kashka- -da ya would look especially ema kable, i we ook in o conside a ion ha hea y sil e coins o his se ies we e capable o long dis ance a el. Indeed, ou specimens belonging o i ha e been eco ded a beyond he e i o y o Soghd. The closes o he inds was made in Fe ghana Valley in he Osh egion o Ky gyzs an (Kamyshe 2002, 64, ig. 97, 65, 123, en y 97; Kamyshe 2008, 61). Ano he specimen was disco e ed in he middle o he 19 h cen u y in he K asnou imsk dis ic o he Pe m go e no ship (in he Kama a ea, a no h in Russia) 9 The second specimen emains unpublished and is held among he inds om Qum -So an/Kum- -Sul an in he collec ion o he Museum o O ien al A in Moscow. 10 Osmund Bopea achchi mis akenly desc ibes his ind as wo sepa a e hoa ds (Bopea achchi 1991b, 11). 11 The only speci ic e e ence o he ind o acoin belonging o his se ies in he a ea o Sama qand (E naza o a 1974, 166, pl. 3:172) esul ed om acon usion: Zeimaľ showed on he basis o he documen a ion p ese ed in he a chi e o he Sama qand Museum, ha he specimen men ioned by E naza o a as ound nea Sama qand, in eali y came om Tal -iMu dapa ou hoa d (Zeimaľ 1990, 13, n. 14). 93ALEKSANDR NAYMARK and acqui ed by he He mi age Museum in 1852 (Smi no a 2005, 140).12 One mo e coin was ound nea he illage o Pasanau i si ua ed on he Geo gian Mili a y Road 90 km no h o Tbilisi (Kazamano a 1961, 120).13 The ou h one was unea hed on he island o Ho i sa in he Dnep Ri e in he mode n e i o y o Uk aine (Vasme 1929, 285, 41). Finally, i should be men ioned he e, ha all he eco ded ea ly acquisi ions o such coins (Tychsen 1828; Bu nes 1834/II, pl. 3; Kos enko 1871, 65–67) we e made in he bazaa s o Bukha a. I was only a e he Russian conques o Tu kes an, ha coins o his se ies s a ed being epo ed as coming om he Za a shan alley in gene al and e en mo e speci ically om Sama qand (Hoe nle 1899, 23; Kas aľskiy 1940, nos. 3–4, 347; Masson 1950, no. 4, 159). Ye , as EugeneV. Zeymaľ al eady igh ully poin ed ou , hese claims we e ce ainly based on he place o pu chase, no he ind (Zeymaľ 1990, 13). Indeed, all Sama qand pu chases da e o he imes when ase ious an iqua ian ade had al eady de eloped in his ci y and i s numisma ic ma ke had s a ed a ac ing coins om he Bukha an Khana e (Nayma k 2005, 121–126; Nayma k 2015, 139–126). THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EARLY BUKHARAN COINAGE IN THE SCHOLARLY LITERATURE While he p oblem o localiza ion appea s o be inally sol ed, he ch onology o he Bukha an coinage wi h ypes o Eu hydemus is a om being se led. The p oblem, as always, is in he de iciency o he sou ces– he e is no di ec e idence ha could help us o decide he ma e . The composi ion o he only known hoa d p o ides no help, as i s su i ing pa consis s exclusi ely o he coins belonging o he e minal s age o ou coinage and con ains no admixes. Also, as he hoa d was no ini ially p ope ly eco ded, i s ind spo has no been a chaeolog- ically explo ed a all.14 The a chaeological con ex s o he indi idual inds coming om p o essional exca a ions ha e e y ague da es. The e is no p ecise in o ma ion abou he s a ig aphy o a ind om Kyzyl -ky . Meanwhile he si e has acomplex his o y. In he ounda ion o i lies abu ial mound 12 Un il a ew yea s ago, in o ma ion abou he ind o such an ea ly Sogdian coin in Kama a ea would necessa ily in oke all kinds o doub s. Recen ly, howe e , exac ly he same a ea p oduced wo oughly con empo a y coins om Cen al Asia: 1) acoppe coin s uck unde Kujula Kadphises (Ko- s iko – Shi inkin 2015, 44, no. 10) which was mo e han likely o pass Sogdiana on i s way o he no h (c . A akhodzhae – Nayma k 2021, 55–58), and 2) Kanishka’scoppe uni wi h Kho ezmian S -shaped coun e ma k (Kos iko – Shi inkin 2015, 45, no. 11). We should also conside amen ion o an ea lie ind o acoin o Kujula Kadphises in he Kama a ea by F ede ick Tegga (1969, 204). These h ee inds o coppe Kushan uni s sugges he di ec con ac be ween Kama a ea and he co e lands o Cen al Asia in he 1s and he 2nd cen u y CE and by doing so make he in o ma ion abou he Pe m o igin o he sil e imi a ion o Eu hydemus’ e ad achms much mo e c edible. 13 In amo e ecen wo k by Ma iusz Mielcza ek, he condi ions o his ind we e mis akenly gi en as “an inhuma ion g a e co e ed wi h s ones” (Mielcza ek 1997, 131–132). The Russian a icle by Kazamano a, o which he English ex o Mielsza ek e e s, says only ha i was an chance ind: aman ound his specimen while making abon i e in he di ch unning along he side o he oad (Kazamano a 1961, 120). 14 Exca a ions ha Makhsuma Niyazo a (Bukha an Museum) conduc ed on he si e o Tal -iMu - dapa ou in mid 1980s showed ha he si e was con inuously occupied om an iqui y (appa en ly, om a leas he i s cen u ies BCE) o he ea ly Middle Ages (a leas o he 8 h cen u y CE). Un- o una ely, he ind o 1939 could no be linked o apa icula spo and consequen ly canno be ela ed o as a um on he si e. 100 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2 Eu hydemus. Since he king’shai s yle on he on side o he imi a ions o he i h Se ies is bo owed om he e ad achms issued by he min B in 210–206 BC, i mus be assumed ha he imi a ions o he i h Se ies began o be min ed no ea lie han he las decade o he 3 d cen u y BCE. As N. M. Smi no a has al eady no ed, he mo ing o he club o he knee o He acles on he coins o he i h imi a ional Se ies– which makes he ock an unnecessa y elemen o he image– is no immedia ely ollowed by he elimina ion o he ock (Smi no a 2005, 168, a . 6, no. 21). On specimens 7 and 8, he club al eady es s on he o’sknee, while he ock is s ill depic ed. I looks like his illogicali y exis s only in he Bukha a imi a i e coins, whe eas i is absen om he main coinage o Eu hydemus, which shows he opposi e p ocess: he club has no ye comple ely mo ed o he knee, bu he ock has al eady been p ac ically emo ed (K i 2001, 143, B14, and B15; Glenn 2020, nos. 331, 335). SERIES 6 The dies o he wo coins cons i u ing ou Se ies 6 (Pl. 1/2:10–11) we e no he wo k o asingle die -cu e and we e combined he e in one se ies; his is mainly because o he ema kable simila i y o he depic ion o he coi u e, in pa icula , o he a angemen o he locks a he back o he head. The la e undoub edly ep oduced all he peculia i ies o la e dies om Glenn’sg oup Vo min B (Glenn 2020, nos. 483–500). Ano he ea u e e lec ing he Bac ian p o o ype is he new way o ende ing he eye. Ye he po ai on specimen 10 e ained some ea u es cha ac e is ic o ou Bukha an Se ies 4 and 5 as well. The mos no iceable o hem is he ende ing o he lips. The e e se p esen s asimila combina ion o old local and newly bo owed ea u es: he igu e o He acles e ains p opo ions common o he Bukha an imi a ions (Se ies 3 o 6), lion skin co e ing he ock acqui es he second paw ( he i s one appea ed on Se ies 4), and he monog am RK is in oduced, albei al eady in dis o ed o m. Specimen 11 is in e es ing in se e al aspec s.17 I s ob e se is e y close o o iginal e a- d achms o Eu hydemus, al hough some ea u es such as he eye and he second chin a e ob- iously exagge a ed. The e y speci ic endi ion o lips on coin 11, which ob iously emula es one o he o iginal e ad achms (c . Glenn 2020, pl. 25: 427), pe sis s in o he nex Se ies 7. The e e se o specimen 11, howe e , ollows local adi ion and is e y close o he p e ious coin 10. Gi en he ela i ely high weigh o he specimen (16.12 g) i is wo hwhile o no e he shape o i s blank, which is an une en pla e, e y hick on one side and na owing almos o no hing on ano he . This coin comes om he collec ion o Alexande Bu nes, who acqui ed i in Bukha a among o he imi a ions (Bu nes 1834, Pla e “Bac ian and o he coins”, no. 1). SERIES 7 The ea lies specimen o his Se ies (Pl. 1/3:12) closely ep oduces he ype o min B, G oupV(Glenn 2020, nos. 412–503, esp. 415–419) and i is only he manne o execu ion, se - e ed end o he oyal name in he legend, and educed weigh (13.28 g– 11.82 g) ha dis inguish i om he o iginal e ad achms o Eu hydemus. The ollowing i e specimens o his Se ies a e clea ly he p oduc s o local de elopmen (Pl. 1/3:13–17). 17 I was always conside ed o be an o iginal e ad achm o Eu hydemus. Simon Glenn, howe e , included i in his ca alogue wi h a ema k “imi a ion?” (Glenn 2020, 228, pl. 25: 504). 101ALEKSANDR NAYMARK SERIES 8 The h ee specimens ga he ed in Se ies 8 (Pl. 1/4:18–20) also appea o be he esul o local de elopmen . The di e ences be ween hem and p e ious Se ies 7 a e mos ly “s ylis ic” and a e likely o esul om he appea ance o anew die -cu e a he min . SERIES 9 The acial ea u es o he oyal e igy on he coins o his Se ies (Pl. 1/4:21–24) changed o he “aged” e sion o Eu hydemus’ image, bu he depic ion o coi u e emained he same as on p e ious Se ies. As a esul , i is no possible o de e mine he exac po ai model on he basis o he ob e se. The monog am on he e e se poin s o min B, G oup VI in Glenn’sclas- si ica ion. SERIES 10 The ea lies known coin o his Se ies is closely linked o he la e coins o Se ies 9, bu he acial ea u es– i s o all, he noses– a e qui e di e en . The uppe lip on specimens 2818 and 29 (Pl. 1/5:28–29) seems o be ans o ming in o amous ache (?), which could e lec an indi idual ea u e o an ac ual appea ance o anomadic ule . HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE Two impo an conclusions can be de i ed om he coins o he i s h ee se ies: 1) As hese ea lies Bukha an imi a ions ep oduced he ea u es o he ea lies ypes o e ad achms p oduced by Bac ian min s Aand B, we can assume ha hese Sogdian imi a ions we e is- sued some ime a he beginning o Eu hydemus’ eign. 2) The signi ican ans o ma ion o he ype du ing he min ing o Se ies 3 sugges s ha his was ap o ac ed coinage, con inued possibly o adecade o e en wo. These wo obse a ions emo e he seeming “con adic ion” be ween he wo a o emen ioned ca ego ies o numisma ic e idence, because bo h now poin o he ea ly eign o Eu hydemus as he ime when G eeks o Bac ia los con ol o e Soghd. The second se o conclusions can be de i ed om he upda es o image y ha we see on Bukha an coins s a ing wi h Se ies 4. Why would Sogdians need o align he design o hei imi a ions wi h he ype ans o ma ions in Bac ian coinage? The answe o his ques ion lies in he sys em o ela ions be ween he mona chs o seden a y Bac ia and he new nomadic ule s who ook om hem he lands o Soghd. Eu hydemus himsel desc ibed he dange s o his si ua ion du ing acon e sa ion wi h Teleas, he ep esen a i e o An iochus III, sen by he Seleucid king o he besieged ci y o Bac a. Reques ing he li ing o he blockade, Eu- hydemus claimed ha o he wise nei he o he kings would be sa e, because “g ea ho des o nomads we e close a hand” posing “adange o bo h” and ha once hese nomads would be allowed “in o he coun y (Bac ia), i would ce ainly be u e ly ba ba ized.” (Polybius xi, 34). The ypical solu ion employed by seden a y ule s in such cases was asecu i y paymen 18 Iam acquain ed wi h his specimen only h ough he publica ion o A.A. Musakae a, who gi es me ological da a as: W 15.48, D 28, axes 12:00 (Musakae a 2014, 51, no 7, abl. 2: 10, p.341). This, howe e , looks unjus i iably exagge a ed agains he backg ound o o he coins o his se ies and he gene al his o y o ea ly Bukha an imi a ions. 102 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2 o es less nomadic neighbo s o o es all hei a acks.19 Du ing he G aeco -Bac ian pe iod such ala ge in e na ional mone a y “ ans e ” was likely o be paid in e ad achms, he highes a ailable sil e denomina ion. No doub he in lux o sil e coins ecei ed by Sogdian ule s om Eu hydemus looded he ela i ely small mone a y economy o Soghd. Such asi ua ion would c ea e acons ain o he local min , as hese new Bac ian coins we e supe io o he imi a ions o ea lie Eu hydemus’ e ad achms. Indeed, being s uck in Sogdiana o some ime, he coins o imi a ions se ies had al eady su e ed om he g adual educ ion o weigh down o ca. 12 g. To compe e wi h he new ull weigh e ad achms a i ing om Bac ia, he moneye s o Bukha a came up wi h anew se ies o imi a ions wi h an upda ed po ai “ma ching” he con empo a y e ad achms o Eu hudemus (change o hai s yle on se ies 4). Mo e adjus - men s can be seen on he e e ses o se ies 5. I appea s ha he Bukha ans also aised he weigh o hei coins, al hough i was s ill no eally calib a ed and emained way below he ull weigh o he p o o ype. Mos likely Eu hydemus had o pay his nomadic neighbo s epea edly and he pe iodic in lux o his coins p o oked se e al upda es in Bukha an imi a ions. Th ee mo e “upda es” o ypes a e e lec ed in se ies 6, 7, and 9. Wi h he dea h o Eu hydemus he in lux o his e ad achms ceased, and consequen ly he Bukha an min e mina ed a emp s o align i s imi a ion wi h he o iginal Bac ian e ad achms. Wi h he p esen ly a ailable ma e ials, i looks like se ies 9 was he las one o comply wi h new ypes in oduced in Bac ia. S a ing wi h Se ies 10, he ype o Bukha an imi a ions oze and emained immobilized un il he in oduc ion o aSogdian legend in he 1s cen u y CE (Nayma k 2024). While he wo se s o conclusions o mula ed in he p e ious sec ion o his a icle a e buil on he solid ma e ial basis, in his sec ion Iwould like o o mula e amo e specula i e and less ce ain hypo hesis in ega d o he ch onology o he e en s. Iby no means insis on he co ec ness o his heo y and p esen i he e wi h he unde s anding ha i would need ma e ial p oo in he u u e. Bac ian e ad achms ha se ed as he p o o ypes o Se ies 4–9 o he Bukha an im- i a ions belonged o he la e pa o Eu hydemus’ eign. Osmund Bopea achchi and B ian K i sugges ed speci ic da es o hese o iginal Bac ian coins, while Simon Glenn cau iously abs ained om o e ing any p ecise ch onology wi h his classi ica ion. Ha ing no pe sonal opinion on his ma e , Iam, howe e , emp ed o p opose an absolu e ch onology o ea ly Bukha an imi a ions o Eu hydemus’ e ad achms, wi h he unde s anding ha i is mos ly specula i e and hus en a i e. The sequences o coins wi hin se ies 4–9 demons a e e y li le in e nal de elopmen – he e is almos no deg ada ion o he ype wi hin each o hem. O cou se, he e a e e y ew coins o each se ies a ou disposal, and he e is achance ha la e specimens do no appea in ou slim sample. This is, howe e , no e y likely– a e all, he e a e six sepa a e se ies and he absence o la e specimens in all six o hem in a andom sample is no e y plausible. I seems mo e likely, ha hese six se ies came in apid succession, wi hin a ew yea s. Imi a i e Se ies 3 cons i u es a e y di e en case. Al hough we cu en ly ha e only h ee specimens belonging o i , hese display all he adi ional signs o along imi a ional coinage: he deg ada ion o image y, he blunde ing o he legends, and asigni ican d op o weigh . I is mo e han likely ha he coins o his se ies we e s uck o e a ela i ely long ime span. 19 The bes documen ed Cen al Asian case o his na u e is he huge paymen made by Sasanian Shahan Shah Pe oz o Heph ali es in he 5 h cen u y CE. Following i , he d achm o Pe oz became he mos commonly imi a ed Sasanian coin in he egion. 103ALEKSANDR NAYMARK Le us jux apose hese obse a ions wi h he ew pieces o in o ma ion ega ding he li e and ca ee o Eu hydemus p ese ed o us by na a i e sou ces. We know ha Eu hydemus a ained he h one a ound 230–226 BCE by elimina ing he membe s o Diodo id dynas y. Soon a e ha , he Bukha ans s a ed issuing imi a ions o his ea ly e ad achms. While we know almos no hing abou he wo ea lies coin se ies o his coinage, he hi d one was likely s uck o awhile– he sugges ion o adecade o e en wo would no be ou o o de . We also know ha An iochus III besieged Eu hydemus in 206 BCE in his capi al ci y o Bac a. Acco ding o Polybius, Eu hydemus was able o pe suade An iochus o lea e him in cha ge o Bac ia a guing ha apo en ial nomadic in asion would pu hem bo h in o ag a e dange . The Seleucid king concluded apeace wi h he Bac ian king and mo ed on o India, while Eu hydemus– who had jus su e ed ase ious de ea and na owly escaped he comple e elimina ion o his powe – was le ace o ace wi h his nomadic neighbo s. Being in a e y ulne able posi ion, Eu hydemus would need o pay his no he n ad e sa ies o . The appea ance o la ge masses o his coins on he ma ke caused he upda es on he side o he Bukha an min (se ies 4). As i was cus oma y, Eu hydemus would need o make ecu ing, mos p obably annual, paymen s, and hese we e he cause o he u he upda es (se ies 5 o 9). The ela i e abundance o coins belonging o se ies 4–10 e sus e y ew specimens o ea ly se ies 1–3 could esul om g ea e a ailabili y o sil e – a e all Eu hydemus’ paymen s we e p obably e y subs an ial. While he min ing o Bukha an imi a ions o Eu hydemus, as we could see om he ma- e ials p esen ed in his a icle, s a ed igh a e he collapse o G eek powe in Soghd, he his o y o his coinage s e ched o ano he ou and ahal hund ed yea s– i was e mina ed only by he Sasanian conques o Bukha a in he 3 d cen u y CE. Qui e in acco dance wi h he heme o he con e ence, he Hellenis ic design o he Bukha an imi a ions o Eu hydemus’ e ad achms pe sis ed o cen u ies “en angling he pas and he p esen .” BIBLIOGRAPHY Adylo , Sh. T. 2000: Raskopki na yugo - os ochnom uchas ke si adeli Paykenda. In: Raskopki Paikende 1999 godu. Sank -Pe e bu g, 20–28. Al am, M. 1986: Nomina P op ia I anica in Nummis. I anisches Pe sonennamenbuchIV. Wien. A akhodjae , A.Kh. 2013a: Données numisma iques pou l’his oi e poli ique de la Sogdiane (IVe–IIe siècles a an no e è e). Re ue Numisma ique 170, 213–246. A akhodjae , А.Kh. 2013b: Numizma icheskie dannye kpoli icheskoy is o ii Sogdiany IV–II . do n.e. In: M.D. Bukha in (ed.): Sc ip a An iqua. Vop osy d e nei is o ii, ilologii, iskuss a ima e iaľnoi kuľ u y. Aľmanakh 3, 243–279. A akhodjae , A.Kh. 2019: Numizma icheskie dannye kpoli icheskoy is o ii Sogdiany IV–II . do n.e. (Ad- denda e co igenda). Sc ip a An iqua 8, 29–61. A akhodjae A.Kh. 2021: Données numisma iques pou l’his oi e poli ique de la Sogdiane (IVe–IIe siècles a an no e è e) (Addenda e Co igenda). Re ue Numisma ique, 25–55. A akhodjae , A.Kh.– Nayma k A.I. 2021: Neopubliko annye nakhodki kushanskikh mone Sogde. O’zbek‑ is an A kheologiyasi 24/1, 42–62. Be na d, P.1985: Les monnaies ho s éso s. Ques ions d’his oi e g éco ‑bac ienne. Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum 4. Mémoi es de la Déléga ion a chéologique ançaise en A ghanis an 28. Pa is. 104 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2 Bopea achchi, O. 1990: Pod azhaniya mone am E idema ida a neza isimos i Sogdiany. In: Iu.F. Bu iako (ed.): Kuľ u a d e nego is edne eko ogo Sama kanda iis o icheskie s yazi Sogda. Tezisy doklado so e sko‑ ‑ an suzskogo kollok iuma. Tashken , 30–31. Bopea achchi, O. 1991a: Monnaies g éco ‑bac iennes e indo ‑g ecques. Ca alogue aisonné. Pa is. Bopea achchi, O. 1991b: The Eu hydemus’ Imi a ions and he Da e o Sogdian Independence. Silk Road A and A chaeology 2, 1–21. B acey, R.– Nayma k, A. 2024: Sogdian Coins in he B i ish Museum. Tashken . Bu nes, A. 1837: T a els in o Bokha a i–iii. London. C ibb, J. 2007: Money as ma ke o Cul u al Con inui y and Change in Cen al Asia. In: A e Alexande . Cen al Asia be o e Islam. P oceedings o B i ish Academy 133. Ox o d, 333–375. Cu is, J. 2012: An hony G een (1956–2012). I aq 74, iii–ix. Da ido ich, E.A. 1955: Neopubliko annye mone nye nakhodki na e i o ii Uzbekis ana. T udy Ins i u a is o ii ia kheologii AN UzSSR 7, 155–174. D ouin, E. 1893: Une médaille alégende sémi ique d’un oi de la Sogdiane. Re ue sémi ique d’épig aphie e d’his oi e ancienne 1893/a il, 173–176. D u echenskaia, N.D– Go in, A.N.– Sheiko, K.A. 2016: Mone y iz k epos i Uzunda a (po ezuľ a am abo 2013–2014 gg.). In: M.D. Bukha in (ed.): Sc ip a An iqua. Vop osy d e nei is o ii, ilologii, iskuss a ima e iaľnoi kuľ u y. Aľmanakh 5, 349–366. E naza o a, T.S. 1974: Denezhnoe ob ashchenie Sama kanda po a kheologo -numizma icheskim dannym (do nachala IX .). A asiab 3. Tashken , 155–237. E zako ich, L. 1986: Russkie mone y Tu kes ane. In: N.S. Ro enskii (ed.): Pamia niki is o ii ikul’ u y Kazakhs ana 2. Alma -A a, 51–54. de la Füye, A. 1910: Monnaies ince aines de la Sogdiane e des con ées oisines. Re ue Numisma ique 4e sé ie, 14, 6–73, 281–333. de la Füye, A. 1925: Monnaies ince aines de la Sogdiane e des con ées oisines. Deuxiéme pa ie. Re ue Numisma ique, 4e sé ie 28, 26–50, 143–169. Glen, S. 2020: Money and Powe in Hellenis ic Bac ia. New Yo k. Göbl, R.1978: An ike Numisma ik 1-2. München. Go in, A. 2014: No yi sele kidskiy mone nyy d o : Sama kand -Ma akanda. Ma e ialy po khudozhes ennoy idukho noy kuľ u e Uzbekis ana. Tashken , 29–49. Go in, A. 2015: Anew Seleucid min : Sama kand -Ma akanda. Anabasis 6, 94–106. Go in, A.N.– D u echenskaya, N.D. 2018: Ka alog mone k epos i Uzunda a (Juzhnyi Uzbekis an). Ma e ialy Tokha is anskoi ekspedi sii 11. Tashken . Guliamo , Ia.G. 1956: A kheologicheskie abo y kzapadu o Bukha skogo oazisa. In: T udy ins i u a is o ii ia kheologii 8. Tashken , 149–161. Guliamo , Ia.G. 1958: Bi anga a ikhi. Fan a Tu mush 2, 22. Hobbs, R.1995: Roman Coins om Me , Tu kmenis an. Ox o d Jou nal o A chaeology 14/1, 97–102 Hoe nle, A.F.R.1899: ACollec ion o An iqui ies om Cen al Asia 1. Jou nal o he Asia ic Socie y o Bengal, ex a numbe 1. Calcu a. Hol , F. 1999. Thunde ing Zeus. The Making o Hellenis ic Bac ia. Be keley. Kamyshe , A.M. 2002: Numisma ic He i age o Ky gyzs an. Bishkek. Kamyshe , A.M. 2008: V edenie numizma iku Ki gizs ana. Uchebnoe posobie. Bishkek. Kas aľskii, B.N. 1940: Neizdannaia g eko -bak iyskaia e ad akhma -medaľ An imakha bi aia ches ’ E idemaI. Ves nik d e ney is o ii 12-13 (1940/3-4), 339–347. Kazamano a, L.N. 1961: Pod azhaniya e ad akhmam E idema sob anii GIM. Ves nik d e ney is o ii 77 (1961/3), 120–127. Köhle , H.K.E. 1850: Médailles G eques. In: H.K.E. Kohle : Gesammel e Sch i enI. “Se apis” ode Abhandlungen be e end Das G iechische und Romische Al e umI. Sank -Pe e sbu g, 1–29. 105ALEKSANDR NAYMARK Kos iko , E.A.– Shi inkin, P.S. 2015: Oche ki is o ii P ikam’ya epokhi s edne eko ’ya numizma iches- kikh a e ak akh– “Velikiy Se eb ianyi Puť”, Volzhskaya Bulga iya iB’ia malend. In: Epokha ikingo Vos ochnoi E ope pamia nikakh numizma iki VIII–XI eko . Sank -Pe e bu g, 34–68. Kos enko, L.F. 1871: Pu eshes ie Bukha u usskoi missii 1870 godu. Sank -Pe e bu g. K i , B. 2001: Dynas ic T ansi ions in he Coinage o Bac ia. An iochus ‑Diodo us ‑Eu hydemus. Classical Nu- misma ic S udies 4. Lancas e . K i , B. 2015: New disco e ies in Bac ian Numisma ics. Classical Numisma ic S udies 8. Lancas e . Kuľ u a 1983 = Kuľ u a d e nebukha skogo oazisa. Tashken . Ku bano , G. 2001: Obzo doislamskikh numizma icheskikh kollek siy Bukha skogo muzeya -zapo ednika. Numizma ika Tsen aľnoy Azii 5, 91–95. Ku bano , G.N.– Niyazo aM.I. 1989: Ka alog g eko ‑bak iiskikh mone iz ondo Bukha skogo muzeya. Bukha a. Le ne , J.D. 1993: AHis o ical Pe spec i e o he G aeco ‑Sogdian Kingdom o Eu hydemus.Ph.D. Thesis. Uni e si y o Wisconsin -Madison. Le ne , J.D. 1996: AG aeco -Sogdian Min o Eu hydemus. Re ue Numisma ique 151, 77–94. Le ne , J.D. 1999: The Impac o Seleucid Decline on he Eas e n I anian Pla eau. The Founda ions o A sacid Pa hia and G aeco ‑Bac ia. S u ga . Masson, M.E. 1940: P oshloe Bukha y. Pione Vos oka 38, May 24.– non idi, ci ed a e Masson 1954, 87. Masson, M.E. 1950: Kpe iodiza sii d e nei is o ii Sama kanda. Ves nik d e ney is o ii 34 (1950/4), 155–166. Masson, V.M. 1954: D e nesogdiiskaia mone a iz sob aniya Muzeia is o ii Akademii Nauk UzSSR. T udy Muzyia is o ii Uzbekskoi SSR 2, 85–88. Masson, V.M. 1955: Denezhnoe khozias o d e nei S ednei Azii po numizma icheskim dannym. Ves nik d e ney is o ii 52 (1955/2), 37–47. Mielcza ek, M. 1997: Rema ks on he numisma ic e idence o he no he n Silk Rou e. The Sa ma ians and he ade ou e linking he no he n Black Sea a ea wi h Cen al Asia. In: K. Tanabe– J. C ibb– H. Wang (eds.): S udies in Silk Road Coins and Cul u e. Pape s in Honou o P o esso Ikuo Hi ayama on his 65 h bi hday. Kamaku a, 131–145. Mi chine , M. 1973: The ea ly coinage o Cen al Asia. London. Mi chine , M. 1975: Indo ‑G eek and Indo ‑Scy hian Coinage 4. Con empo a ies o he Indo ‑G eeks. London. Mi chine , M. 1978: O ien al Coins and hei Values. The Ancien and Classical Wo ld. London. Mi chine , M. 2004: Ancien T ade and Ea ly Coinage. London. Mo is, L. 2023: Me chan s and Nomads: Poli ical and Economic O ganiza ion in Sogdiana and he Middle Sy Da ya unde he Kangju Con ede acy. In: S. on Reden (ed.): Handbook o Ancien A o‑Eu asian Eco‑ nomies 3. F on ie ‑Zone P ocesses and T ansimpe ial Exchange. Be lin, 145–270. Mukhamedzhano , A.R.1978: Is o iya o osheniya Bukha skogo oasisa. Tashken . Musakae a, A.A. 1990: An ichnye i annes edne eko ye mone y Muzeya is o ii na odo Uzbekis ana. In: E.V. R eladze (ed.): Numizma ika Uzbekis ana. Tashken , 18–31. Musakae a, A.A. 1991: Mone y Zapadnogo Sogda. III . do n.e.– VIII . n.e. (opy ipologii iis o icheskoy in e p e‑ a sii. Synopsis o ,Ph.D.Thesis. Sama qand. Musakae a, A.A. 2014: S ano lenie idinamika az i iya denezhnykh o noshenii zapadnom Sogde epokhu an ichnos i i annego s edne eko ’a. Tu anskie mone y 2. Tashken . Nayma k, A.I. 1987: D e nie mone y iz Kum -So ana. In: V o aia numizma icheskaia kon e en siya. Tezisy doklado isoobshchenii. Moscow, 50–51. Nayma k, A.I. 1991: Soghdian Coins. In: K.A. Abdullae – E.V. R eladze– G.V. Shishkina (eds.): Cul u e and A o Ancien Uzbekis anI. Exhibi ion Ca alogue. Mosk a, 153–164. Nayma k, A. 2001: Sogdiana, i s Ch is ians and Byzan ium. AS udy o A is ic and Cul u al Connec ions in La e An iqui y and Ea ly Middle Ages.Ph.D. disse a ion. Indiana Uni e si y, Blooming on. Nayma k, A. 2003: Re u ning o Va akhsha. The Silk Road 1/2, 9–22. Nayma k, A. 2005: Nakhodki g echeskikh mone Sogdiane. Numizma ika iepig a ika 17, 116–138. 106 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2 Nayma k, A. 2008: Op ichinakh poia leniia pod azhaniy illinis icheskim mone am Sogdiane. Ves nik d e ney is o ii 264 (2008/1), 55–70. Nayma k, A. 2012: Vizan iiskie anonimnye ollisy iz Fe gany iSemi ech’ya. In: Numizma icheskie ch eniya 2012 goda. Ma e ialy doklado isoobshcheniy. K150‑le iyu so dnia ozhdeniya Pa la Vasiľe icha Zubo a. Mosk a 4–5 dekab ia 2012 g. Мosk a, 31–40. Nayma k, A. 2014: Seleucid Coinage o Sama qand? Jou nal o he O ien al Numisma ic Socie y 221 (Au umn 2014), 1–5. Nayma k, A. 2015: Coin collec ing in colonial Tu kes an ( om Russian conques o he end o he 19 h cen u y). In: B. Calleghe – A. D’O one Rambach (eds.): 4 h Simone Assemani Symposium. T ies e, 26–27 Sep embe 2014. Polymnia. Numisma ica An ica e Medie ale. S udi 9. T ies e, 139–156. Nayma k, A. 2016: Finds o Hellenis ic coins in he Bukha an oasis. In: S. S a k– F. Kidd– D. Mi zaakhme- do – Z. Sil ia– S. Mi zaakhmedo – M. E e s: Bash epa 2016. P elimina y Repo o he Fi s Season o Exca a ions (wi h an appendix by Aleksand Nayma k). A chäologische Mi eilungen aus I an und Tu an 48, 250–256. Nayma k, A. 2022: Immobilized Types in Sogdian Coinage. The case o mules be ween An iochus imi a ions and Hy codes. Jou nal o he O ien al Numisma ic Socie y 250 (Win e 2022), 46–53. Nayma k, A. o hcoming: Pod azhaniya e ad akhmam E idema s amgoi. Alany Bukha e 1 eke n.e. In: ZENO Fes sch i . Collec ion o a icles de o ed o he 20 h Anni e sa y o Zeno. u In e na ional P ojec / O ien al Coin Da abase. Mosk a. Nayma k, A.– A akhodjae , A. 2023: Th ee Pa hian coppe s om Soghd. In: R. Mu ado – A. F ibus– N. Dubo a (eds.): F om he Kope Dagh o he Oxus. Explo ing Ancien Cen al Asia. S udies in Hono o Vic o N. Pilipko. Mosk a, 161–175. Nayma k, A.– Yako le , A. 2011a: D e mednye ellinis icheskie mone y iz Va akhshinskogo massi a zemeľ d e nego o osheniia. Numizma ika Tsen aľnoi Azii 10, 25–46. Nayma k, A.– Yako le , A. 2011b: Two Seleucid coins om he Bukha an oasis. Jou nal o O ien al Numis‑ ma ic Socie y 206 (Win e 2011), 6–8. Niľsen, V.A. 1959: Kyzyl -qy . Is o iya ma e iaľnoy kuľ u y Uzbekis ana 1, 60–78. Obeľchenko, O.V. 1974: Ku gannye mogiľniki epokhi kushan bukha skom oazise. In: B.G. Ga u o (ed.): Tsen aľnaya Aziya kushanskuyu epokhu 1. Mosk a, 202–210. Obeľchenko, O.V. 1992: Kuľ u a An ichnogo Sogda. Mosk a. Omeľchenko, A.V. 2011: Pod azhanie e ad akhme E idema sgo odishcha Paykend. In: Numizma ika Tsen aľnoi Azii 10. Tashken , 47–54. O che 2011 = O che o askopkakh Paykende 2009–2010 godakh. Sank -Pe e bu g. P incep, J. 1973: Obse a ions on Lieu enan Bu nes’sCollec ion o Bac ian and o he Coins. In: A. Bu nes: T a els in o Bokha aII. Ka achi– London– New Yo k, 463–475. R eladze, E.V. 1984: La ci cula ion moné ai e au no d de l’Oxus á l’époque g éco -bac ienne. Re ue Nu‑ misma ique 1984, 61–76. R eladze, E.V. 1987: D e nie mone y S edney Azii. Tashken . R eladze, E.V. 1990: Modeli genezisa mone noi chekanki s edneazia skom mezhdu ech’e. In: G.A.Puga-chen- ko a (ed.): Na s edneazia skikh assakh Velikogo Shelko ogo pu i. Oche ki is o ii ikuľ u y. Tashken , 176–187. R eladze, E. 1999: Coins o Ancien Bukha a. In: A. Pe uccioli (ed.): Bukha a. The My h and he A chi ec u e. P oceedings o he in e na ional symposium sponso ed by he Aga Khan P og am o Islamic A chi ec u e a Ha a d Uni e si y and he Massachuse s Ins i u e o Technology. Camb idge, 29–37. R eladze, E.V. 2002: D e nie is edne eko ye mone y is o iko ‑kul u nykh oblas ey Uzbekis anaI. Tashken . R eladze, E.V.– Go in, A.N. 2015: Hellenis ic Coins om Kampÿ epa. Ancien Ci iliza ions om Scy hia o Sibe ia 21, 120–182. R eladze, E.V.– Musakae a, A.A. 1986: Kis o ii denezhnogo ob ashcheniya Zapadnom Sogde (Klad pod azhanii e ad akhmam E idema iz Bukha y). Obshches ennye nauki Uzbekis ane 6, 35–38. 107ALEKSANDR NAYMARK Ses ini, D. 1831: Desc izione d’alcune medaglie g eche del museo del Signo e ba one S anislas Di Chaudoi . Fi enze. Shishkin, V.A. 1940: A kheologicheskie abo y 1937 g. zapadnoy chas i Bukha skogo oazisa. Tashken . Shishkin, V.A. 1963: Va akhsha. Mosk a. Shishkin, V.A. 1969: Kis o ii a cheologicheskogo izucheniya Sama kanda iego ok es nos ey. In: A asiab 1. Tashken , 3–121. Smi no a, N.M. 2005: G eko -bak iyskie iindo -g echeskie mone y iz sob aniya Gosuda s ennogo E - mi azha. Numizma ika iepig a ika 17. Moscow. Smi no a, N.M. 2008: O annikh pod azhaniyakh e ad akhmam E idema I(230–200 gg. do n.e.). Ves nik d e ney is o ii 264 (2008/1), 71–79. Suleimano , R.Kh. 1979: Ob is okakh annes edne eko oy kuľ u y d e nebukha skogo oazisa. Uspekhi s edneazia skoi a kheologii 4. Lening ad, 17–21. Tegga , F.J. 1969: Rome and China. AS udy o Co ela ions in His o ical E en s. Be keley ( ep in o a1939 edi ion). Tychsen, Th.Ch . 1828: De Numis G aecis e Ba ba is in Bocha a, Nupe epe is, inp imis Numo Deme ii, India e Regis cu obse a ionibus supe numo p o An igoni Asiae Regis Habi o auc o e Th.Ch .Tychsen. In: Commen a iones Socie a is Regiae Scien ia um Go ingensis Resen io es, Classis His o icae e Philogicae 6. Gö ingen, 3–16. Vasme , R.R.1929: (Fasme ). Spisok mone nykh nakhodok II. Soobshcheniya Gosuda s ennoy akademii is o ii ma e iaľnoy kuľ u y 2, 281–324. Widemann, F. 2009: Les successeu s d’Alexand e en Asie Cen ale e leu hé i age cul u el. Essai. Pa is. Wilson, H.H. 1834: P o esso Wilson’sno e. In: A. Bu nes. T a els in o Bokha a 3. London, 459–462. Yakubo skiy, A.Yu. 1940: A kheologicheskaya ekspedi siya Za a shanskuyu dolinu 1934 g. (Iz dne nika nachal’nika ekspedi sii). Т udy O dela Vos oka E mi azha 2, 113–163. Zabelina, N.N. 1949: No aya mone a slegendoi ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΥΘΥΔΗΜΟΥ. K a kie soobshcheniya Ins i u a is o ii ma e iaľnoy kuľ u y 28, 101–102. Zabelina, N.N. 1952: Obzo d e neishikh mone iz kollek sii espublikanskogo is o iko -k ae edcheskogo muzeya Tadzhikskoi SSR. Soobshcheniya is o iko ‑k ae edcheskogo muzeia Tadzhikskoi SSRI. A kheologiya. S alinabad, 73–85. Zeymaľ, E.V. 1978: Poli icheskaya is o iya d e nei T ansoksiany po numizma icheskim dannym. In: V.G. Lukonin (ed.): Kuľ u a Vos oka. D e nos ’ i annee s edne eko ’e. Lening ad, 192–213. Zeymaľ, E.V. 1983a: The Poli ical His o y o T ansoxania. In: E. Ya sha e (ed.): The Seleucid, Pa hian and Sasanian Pe iods 2. The Camb idge His o y o I an 3. Camb idge. Zeymaľ, E.V. 1983b: D e nie mone y Tadzhikis ana. Dushanbe. Zeymaľ, E.V. 1983c: Nachaľnyi e ap denezhnogo ob ashcheniya d e nei T ansoxiany. S ednyaya Aziya, Ka kaz iZa ubeshnyi Vos ok d e nos i. Mosk a, 61–80, 155–162, pl. xiii–xx. Zeymaľ, E.V. 1990: Iz is o ii kollek sii d e nikh s edneazia skikh mone muzeinykh sob aniyakh Uzbek- is ana. In: E.V. R eladze (ed.): Numizma ika Uzbekis ana. Tashken , 7–17. Zeymaľ, E.V. 1996: Münzen on de Seidens aβe. In: W. Seipel (ed.): Weih auch und Seide. Al e Kul u en an de Seidens aβe. Wien, 357–380. Zeymaľ, E.V.– Niki in, A.B.– Koshelenko, G.A. 1985: Tabli sa cxiii. Denezhnoe ob ashchenie Sogda. In: G.A.Koshelenko (ed.): D e neishie gosuda s a Ka kaza iS ednei Azii. Mosk a, 431. Polybius. His o ies. T ans. E.S. Shuckbu gh. London– New Yo k 1962 (1889). Aleksand Nayma k Ho s a Uni e si y, Hemps ead, New Yo k nayma kaleksand @gmail.com 223PLATES Pl. 1/1: Ea ly Eu hydemus Imi a ions om Bukha a. Se ies 1–3. 1– He mi age, Dep . o Numisma- ics, В -Инд-400, W 15.5 g, D 29 mm, axes 12:00. 2– He mi age, Dep . o Numisma ics, В -Инд 404, W 14.65 g, D 25 mm, axes 9:00. 3– Dmi y Ma ko Collec ion, New Je sey, W 13.67 g (p io o cleaning 14.06 g), D 24.40  ×  25.88 mm, axes 12:00. 4– Ashmolean Museum, W 13.43, D 26 mm, axes 12:00. 5– B i ish Museum 1902.06.08-409, W 11.63, D 25.8 mm, axes 12:00. 224 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVIII/2 Pl. 1/2: Ea ly Eu hydemus Imi a ions om Bukha a. Se ies 4–6. 6– He mi age, Dep . o Numi- sma ics, В -Инд 403, W 10.50 g, D 25.5 mm, axes-12:00. 7– B i ish Museum, 1853.03.01-1259, W 13.68 g, D 24.6 mm, axes 12:00. 8– B i ish Museum, OR 0275 COC 328/36, W 10.50 g, D 26 mm, axes 12:00. 9– He mi age, Dep . o Numisma ics, В -Инд 423, W 13.34 g, D 25.5 mm, axes-12:00. 10– He mi age, Dep . o Numisma ics, В -Инд-407, W 14.11 g , D 27 mm, axes-12:00. 11– B i ish Museum 1858.0731.2, W 16.12 g, D 25 mm, axes 12:00.