Ultimately Seleucus was obliged to cede to the Mauryas his easternmost provinces, that is to say at least the Paropamisadae and Arachosia. Though Tarn argued to the contrary,x the recent discovery of inscriptions has made it clear that Maurya control of these two provinces was effective. In addition to the fragmentary Aramaic inscription of Asoka from Laghman now in the Kabul Museum,2 recent years have brought to light two inscriptions of Asoka in the Old City of Qandahar. One of these is a bilingual in Greek and Aramaic describing the benefits conferred on his subjects by Asoka's conversion to Buddhism; the second, in Greek only, contains a portion of Asoka's thirteenth pillar edict, and calls for harmony between the Buddhist sects. A third inscription in Aramaic, later reported from Qandahar, contains fragmentary Buddhist texts.3 The presence of these inscriptions confirms that in the time of Asoka (the grandson of Chandragupta) the Mauryas had effective control of the Paropamisadae and Arachosia. However, confirmation is lacking for Strabo's inherently less probable statement that a large part of Aria was also ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta.
Though obliged to cede his most easterly provinces to the Maurya, Seleucus none the less consolidated his grip on Bactria, Margiana and Sogdiana. An invasion of Saka nomads from the north was eventually beaten off, though it appears that they first succeeded in destroying the city of Marv. In 293 B.C. the king's son Antiochus, whose mother, Apame, was the daughter of the Bactrian Spitamenes, and who was thus himself half-Iranian, was posted to Bactra as joint king to direct the defence of the eastern frontier. In honour of the young prince Marv was refounded under the name of Antiochia-in-Margiana, whilst the Seleucid mint of Bactra issued coins with the joint names of Seleucus and Antiochus. However, when Antiochus succeeded to the sole rule in 280 B.C, his attention was diverted to the problems of Asia Minor, and the Seleucid hold on eastern Iran began to weaken.
It was before the death of Antiochus I in 261 B.C., as a newly discovered inscription of Gurgaan now shows,5 that a certain Andragoras was appointed as Seleucid satrap of Parthia and Hyrcania. During the succeeding reign, that of Antiochus II (261-246 B.C.), Andragoras began to assert a claim to autonomy by the issue of coins in gold and silver. These were, however, inscribed only with the satrap's personal name, and without the royal title. However, within a few years Andragoras had been crushed by a new power, that of Arsaces, founder of the Parthian empire, who overran the province at the head of his nomadic followers, the Parni. Though Wolski has advocated a lower chronology, it seems best to regard the starting point of the Arsacid era in 247 B.C. as marking the overthrow of Andragoras, and the moment of Arsaces' succession as ruler of Parthia.
At about the same date, and further to the east in Bactria, another Seleucid satrap was working his way to independent sovereignty. This was the celebrated Diodotus, the founder of the Bactrian kingdom. His rise is marked by the appearance, on coins still carrying the name of Antiochus II, of a new portrait. It is accompanied by the new ruler's punning device, the figure of Zeus hurling the thunderbolt. On later issues the name of Diodotus appears with the royal title. According to a statement of Justin (XLI. 4. 9) Diodotus (whom he calls Theodotus) was succeeded by a son of the same name. However, numismatic authorities disagree as to whether the portraits of two Diodoti can reliably be distinguished on the coins.
Metals and Emergence of a New Age
