When I set out to write this article it was to be about a new elderly portrait of Eucratides that was purchased from the current hoard. I had held up the writing because I didn't have enough historical background on this king though I had no idea how sparse it really was. I had to leave the cozy cooperative world of Numismatics and venture to "the Cambridge Ancient History" Second Edition, Volume VIII, to get the historical filler I needed to flesh out the article. What I got was a shock and a minor revelation. What Cambridge said was that there were two Eucratides according to them, the first designated Megas and the second Soter. They believe that Eucratides I , a satrap of another province, or just a soldier of fortune, had no blood relationship to the existing royal family, but ruled from the Civil War of171 until 155 BC, when he eliminated Antimachos, Agathokles and Pantaleon. It is felt by Cambridge that Eucratides I ended his rule in 155 BC after 16 years and that Eucratides II was in power from 155-135 BC. Yes! The last 20 years! Cambridge says there must be two Eucratides because there is no old portrait. Despite the fact that I NOW HAVE THAT OLDER PORTRAIT, I agree with them, the enemy, those who would mess up the orderly world of Numismatics.

As I have mentioned in previous articles, I learned from Herbert Cahn at an ANS lecture, that individual characteristics, those characteristics which are peculiar to a given individual and no one else, are what makes a portrait a portrait. The pre-hoard portraits of Eucratides, in Mitchiner and other references depict a round headed, apple-cheeked, individual with a small nose, flared nostrils, and small pursed lips with a shallow set eye. This would be the portraits of Eucratides I , as these coins tend to be the most worn portraits of Eucratides. The new portraits of Eucratides, I would say Eucratides II, are those which we were referring to in the trade as being of poor style. Now I see they are excellent portraits of Eucratides II. This individual differs immensely from Eucratides I in that he has a large beak-like nose without flared nostrils, extended unpursed lips coming straight down from the nose, very deep set eyes, and flat cheeks. If we step back and view these two portrait types without prejudice, we can see they are in fact, different individuals. It has been pointed out to me that the Seleucids and the Romans have wildly different portraits of the same individual. This though is not the case with the Bactrians. The portraits on the early tetradrachms are remarkably consistent, even those of Euthodemus I who ages but retains the same facial characteristics. The tetradrachm of Eucratides which I now believe is Eucratides II, with the old portrait is clearly the same individual; the beak-like nose, the lips, and the set of the eye are all the same. The face and the eyes droop, having lost their elasticity either because of disease or, less likely, old age. If it is disease, as it appears, then Plato is not guilty of murdering his father and driving over his body with the wheels of his chariot as the prevailing myth has had us believe. To make matters less tidy and a bit more perplexing, Mitchiner-173a lists a Eucratides with the title Soter which Sear follows as #7569. This portrait is not Eucratides II but could be a young Eucratides I or a third short lived Eucratides as there are not many coins known of this type and none in the current hoard.

The Cambridge History interestingly states that one reason they suspect there were two Eucratides instead of one, is because there are no portraits of Eucratides at an advanced age. It would have been easy to write an article reporting that the old portrait had been found; the trouble is we found the young portrait of Eucratides II with his old portrait. What other enlightenment still lies encrusted beneath our feet I do not know, but I will be waiting with enthusiasm and an open mind.

Copyright @ 1997 by Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. - http://www.harlanjberk.com - E-Mail: info@harlanjberk.com