INTEODUCTION 93

landiscken Gesellschaft, Leipzig, 19063 are direct interpretations of
the coin inscriptions. He rightly shows that a coin described by
Edward Thomas and Cunningham as a joint type of Vonones and
Azes, is really a coin of Manes, and so the supposed connexion
between Vonones and Azes disappears. But there are joint types,
both, in silver and copper, of Azes and Azilises. Azes struck one or
two scarce coins bearing his own name in Greek on the obverse, and
that of Azilises in Kharosthi on the reverse. The legends are BAZI
AEni BAZlAEflN METAAOY AZQYS and Maharajasa rajarajasa
mahatasa Ayilisasa. Then again we have a very scarce joint type
with exactly similar inscriptions to those just chronicled, but the
name in Greek is AZIA120 Y, and in Kharosthi is Ayasa. Mr. Vincent
Smith postulates that these two joint types, when considered together,
prove that Azilises, before his accession to independent power, was the
subordinate viceregal colleague of an Azes, and that an Azes, similarly,
was subsequently the subordinate viceregal colleague of Azilises. The
two princes named Azes cannot be identical, and they must be
distinguished as Azes I and Azes II. Mr. Vincent Smith holds that
this necessary inference is fully confirmed by minute examination
of the immense mass of coins bearing the name of Azes alone, which
readily fall into two classes—one well executed, with good Greek
legends, the other semi-barbarous, with debased, and often corrupt,
Greek inscriptions. He concludes that Azes II was the grandson
of Azes I, and son of Azilises, who undoubtedly succeeded Azes I.

Whether this evidence by itself is weighty enough to warrant so
important a conclusion, is a matter of opinion, I know it is generally
held that Azes came before Azilises, but the coins are so far our only
testimony, and the silver coins of Azilises are better executed and
earlier in style than those of Azes. The best didrachms of Azes
compare unfavourably with the fine silver coins of Azilises with
Zeus obverse, and Dioskouroi reverse, and with other rare silver
types of Azilises. If Azilises preceded Azes, then, following Mr. Vincent
Smith, we must have Azilises I and Azilises II, instead of Azes I
and Azes II. The differences in type and style between the abundant
issues of Azes can be adequately explained by reasons of locality
alone, operating through a long reign.

The dynasties of Maues and Vonones coined extensively in silver
and copper, but like the Indo-Greek princes, they did not strike gold.
A possible exception to this last statement is the unique gold piece in
this Collection which bears the name Athama, and is certainly of either
Indo-Scythian or Indo-Parthian fabric. No inscription containing the
names of Maues or Vonones, or of their immediate successors, has yet
been found, but the coins prove that Azes must have employed in to