kushana stone inscription

[Guest guest]

A Kushana stone-inscription and the question about

 

the origin of the `Saka era

Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar

 

The Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society

VOL.20, 1902

P.269-302

 

..

 

 

 

p.269

 

ART. XVII.--A Kushana stone-inscription and the

question about the origin of the 'Saka era. By

Devadatta Ramkrishna BHANDABKAR, B.A.

 

[Read 19th October 1899.]

 

TEXT

 

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

In the year 45 of the great king Devaputra

H & #65533;vishka, in the third (month) of the rainy season,

on the fifteenth day-on this (date specified as)

above, an image of the blessed incomparable 'S & #65533;kya

Muni was installed in the Ro'sikavih & #65533;ra in A.lika,

by the female layworshipper Khvasich?for the gift of

health for herself and for the welfare and happiness

of her parents, her worshipful mistress, of the

mother of 'Sama.nik? of 'Sama.nik? of J & #65533;vaka, of

the mother of J & #65533;vaka and of all creatures.

The stone on which this inscription is engraved,

was found by me in the library of the Bombay

University. It originally belonged, I

___

 

(1) That here the month and not the fortnight of the

rainy season is to be understood after the

numeral 3, will be seen from Ep. I, d. I, pp. 384

and 386. See also J.R.A.S. (N.S.) VI, 184, where

the sixteenth day clearly shows that the second

month and not fortnight of summer is intended.

 

(2) Arogyadakhi.na' is here identical with

Arogyadakhi.n & #65533;ye'. This is on instance of the

crade form taking the place of an inflected form

;for forther instances, vide Ep. Ind.. I., 375.

The expression ' & #65533;rogyadakshi.na occurs in one of

the M athara inscriptions published by Dowson

(J.B.A.R [N.S.]VI. 187, No. 23) and Growse(Ind.

Ant. VI. 218, No. 3). As they have misread the

whole inscription, I submit my transcript of it:

[L.1] A similar phrase

'arogadachhinae' is to be found in the

inscription on the Wardak vase.

 

 

p.270

 

am told, to Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji. But no

information as regards the place where it was

discovered is forthcoming.

The inscription contains four lines of writing

which covers a space of about 2' 5 1/4 " broad by 4 "

high and is in a state of almost perfect

preservation. Immediately above the pedestal on which

it is incised are visible vestiges of the feet only,

undoubtedly, of an image of Buddha the gift of which

the inscription purports to mention. The average size

of letters is 3/4 " in the first three lines, and is

1/2 " in the fourth. The type of characters agrees

fully with that of the votive inscriptions of the

Kushana period discovered at Mathura.

The inscription refers itself to the reign of the

Kushana king H & #65533;vishka, with whose name is coupled the

title of Mah & #65533;r & #65533;ja only, without the usual additional

title R & #65533;j & #65533;tir & #65533;ja. It is a Buddhist inscription

and

the object thereof is to record the installation, by

the female lay-worshipper Khvasich? of the statue of

S & #65533;kya Muni on the pedestal of which it is engraved.

It is dated, in numerical symbols, in the year

forty-five, on the fifteenth day of the third month

of the rainy season.

This year forty-five is one of a series of dates

occurring in inscriptions of the Kushana kings

Kanishka, Huvishka and Vasudeva, and ranging from the

year 4 to 98. In order to determine the English

equivalent of the date of this as well as other

inscriptions of the Kushana period, we have first to

settle to what era they refer. It was Fergusson who

first started the theory that Kanishka was the

originator of the Saka era, and that the dates of

Kanishka and his successors are therefore years of

that era. This view has been adopted by most

antiquarians, but so far as my knowledge goes, it is

only Fergusson and Prof. Oldenberg who give any

reasons in favour of their thesis, and the rest

simply assume it as proved. We shall first examine

the arguments of Fergusson.(3) He begins by saying

that as worn out coins of the Roman Consular period

(43 B. C.) were found in conjunction with those of

Kanishka in the Maniky & #65533;l tope supposed to have been

built by him, it shows that Kanishka flourished after

that date i.e. 43 B. C. But how many years after that

date Kanishka lived cannot, as Fergusson himself

acknowledges, be determined. This, therefore, can

hardly be called an argument. Secondly, he asserts

that in the Ahin Posh Tope near Jelalabad, coins of

Kadphises, Kanishka and Huvishka were obtained

together with the Roman coins of Domitian,

___

 

(3) J. R. A. S. (N.S.) 1880, pp, 264-267.

 

 

p.271

 

Trajan, and the empress Sabina. The coin of this

last-named person shows that the erection of the tope

cannot be earlier than l20 A. D. and may be as late

as 180 or even 150 A. D. And if it is supposed, says

Fergusson, that the dates of the inscriptions of

Kanishka and his successors are years of the 'Saka

era, the date 48 of Huvishka (taking this for our

present purpose) corresponds to 126-127 A. D. which

accords perfectly with the date arrived at from the

Roman coins--130-140 A. D. This, I think, is the only

argument on which Fergusson's theory is based. Now

the only thing that may be called certain is that

Huvishka cannot be earlier than 120 A. D. But that

he lived about this time is an assumption that

requires to be proved.(4) And Fergusson's argument

does not prevent us from assigning him a later

period. Nay, he himself owns the difficulty of

placing his succcessor V & #65533;sudeva so early as 171 A. D.

if his latest date 98 is supposed to be a 'Saka year.

For the architecture and the sculptures of the Ali

Musjid Tope which he thinks to have been built in the

time of V & #65533;sudeva, since he is the latest of the

princes whose coins are found there, represent the

doctrine of an advanced Mah & #65533;y & #65533;na school and the

erection thereof, cannot in his opinion, be anterior

to the fourth or the fifth century; This means that

according to Fergusson, from the available

architectural evidence, the dates of V & #65533;sudeva cannot

refer to the 'Saka era, but must correspond to some

years in the fourth or fifth century of the Christian

era which is the conclusion our investigation will

ultimately lead us to.

We shall now test the line of reasoning which

brings Prof. Oldenberg(5) to the conclusion that

Kanishka started the 'Saka era. He first shows that

the word Korano occurring on coins with barbaric

legends of Kanishka, corresponds to the Kushana of

the coins of his predecessors, and the Gushana of the

Maniky & #65533;l inscription to which it tells us that that

king belonged. Then the Professor refers us to a

tetradrachm in the British museum, the legend on

which reads according to him TYIANNOYNTO?HIAOY & #65533;AKA

KOIIANOY. Since

___

 

(4) In the N. Chr. (Numismatic Chronicle) for 1889,

pp 274-275 Cunningham after referring the dates of

Kanishka, Huvishka, and V & #65533;sudeva to the

Selcukidan era with four hundreds omitted, brings

in confirmation thereof the argument that

Huvishka was a contemporary of the empress Sabina

as their coins were found together in the Ahin

Posh Tope. My refutation of Fergusson's argument

holds equally good in this case.

 

(5) Ind, Ant. X, 214-215.

 

 

p.272

 

here the word 'Saka is associated with the word

Korano, the Professor argues that the Kushanas were

'Sakas, and that Kanishka was therefore of the 'Saka

nationality. Further, he observes that as from the

evidence of his coins Kanishka appears to have

reigned about the close of the first century A.D. and

there was no other Indian Prince at this time so

famous as Kanishka, and as we find an era with

reference to which the inscriptions of Kanishka and

his successors appear to have been dated, Kanishka

was the founder of the 'Saka era. Now, when Percy

Gardner first published his notice of the coin just

referred to, in the Numismatic Chronicle,(6) he read

the third word & #65533;AKA. And his reading was no doubt

accepted by E. Thomas for some time,(7) but he soon

pointed out (correctly as will be shown) when he

found another coin of the same type that the letters

between the horse's legs were & #65533;AN followed by AB in

the field in front.(8) But in his British Museum

Catalogue of Greek and Seythian kings of India, Percy

Gardner rejects this reading as unintelligible and

sticks to that first; proposed by him.(9) He further

affirms that the third letter of this word is like a

retrograde N (), which on later

Parthian and Bactrian coins is engraved for K. But

Cunningham, who carefully examined the legends on the

diverse coins of this king arrived at the conclusion

that with Thomas the third word in the legend must be

read Sanab.(10) In the first place he points out that

there is a fifth letter B, which is distinct even on

the aforesaid tetradrachm but which Gardner and, it

may be added, Prof. Oldenberg pass unnoticed, Next,

he tells us that the legend on a similar coin noticed

by Gardner in a footnote contains the word KOPANOY

which he rightly reads as KOPANOY and not KOPAKOY,

although here there is a retrograde N which according

to him should have been read K. Lastly, Cunningham

says that on one of the tetradrachms of this king

this N of & #65533;A NAB is properly formed. The correct

reading therefore is Sanab and not 'Saka. The 'Saka

extraction of Kanishka thus remains unproved since

the reading of the legend on the tetradrachm in the

British Museum from which it is inferred, has been

shown to be erroneous, Prof. Oldenberg's theory of

Kanishka being the founder of the 'Saka era has

therefore no ground to stand upon.

To my mind it appears that unless the 'Saka

nationality of Kanishka is established, all attempts

to show that he was the originator of the

___

 

(6) N. Chr. (1874), XIV. N. S.,p. 161.

(7) Arch. Sur. West. Ind. II., p.50 ff.

(8) J.R.A.S. (N.S), 1883, pp.75-76.

(9) Gard, Intro, p. xlvii.

(10) N. Chr, 1890, pp.111-112.

 

 

p.273

 

'Saka, era must be futile. But, on the contrary,

evidence of a cogent nature can be adduced, looking

quite the other way. Kalha.na's R & #65533;jatara^ngi.n?11)

speaks of Kanishka as sprung from the Turushka race

which corresponds to the modern Turks. Again, Al

B & #65533;runi(12) tells us a legend which makes Kanika,

i.e. Kanishka, a descendant of the Turk family called

Sh & #65533;hiya, founded by Barhatak & #65533;n, whom if describes as

wearing " Turkish dress, a short tunic open in front,

a high hat, boots and arms. " And this is clearly

attested by the royal figures on the coins, notably

of Wema-Kadphises and Kanishka. About the costume and

features of Wema-Kadphises, Kanishka's predecessor,

II. H. Wilson males the following remarks: " He wears

a conical cap turned up at the sides, a tunic close

to the body over which is a sort of strait coat:

boots are invariably worn, The features are not those

of the Mongal but of the Turk tribe. " (13) Thus

Kalhana's statement, the legend mentioned by Al

B & #65533;runi and the figures on the coins of Wema-Kadphises

and Kanishka so thoroughly corroborate one another as

to leave no doubt in regard to the Turk extraction of

Kanishka.(14) Further, among the foreign powers with

which Samudragupta entered into alliance, are

mentioned in his Allahabad pillar inscription

Daivaputrash & #65533;hish & #65533;h & #65533;nushahi-'Saka-Muru.n.da.(15)

There is some difference of opinion with respect to

the first three words of this long Sanskrit compound.

Cunningham takes them all as a single compound title

referring to a Kushana prince.(16)Mr. V. A. Smith

however like Dr. Fleet proposes to take them

separately, each designating a different king.(17)

But whatever may be the explanation of the first

three components of the compound, this is

incontrovertible that, the 'Sakas are distinguished

from the Devaputra kings of whom Kanishka was one.

Kanishka therefore was not a 'Saka prince, and hence

cannot be the founder of the 'Saka era.

___

(11) I, 170.

(12) Sachan's Al B & #65533;runi II, 11.

(13) Ar. Ant. 349.

(14) These arguments occurred to me long before I

read Cunningham's remarks regarding this point,

at N. Chr. 1892, pp. 42-43. In addition to those

which I have set forth, Cunningham has adduced

other cogent arguments which in my opinion leave

not even the shadow of a doubt as to the 'Sakas

and the Kushanas being altogether separate

races.

(15) Fleet, Cor. Ins. Ind. III, 8.

(16) N. Chr. 1893, p. 118; Arch. Sur. Reports. III,

42.

(17) J. R. A. S. 1897, p. 902; Cor. Ins.Ind. III, 14.

 

 

p.274

 

There is one other line of argument that leads us

to the same conclusion. It can scarcely be doubted

that the Northern and the Western Kshatrapas were of

'Saka origin.(18) The presumption therefore naturally

arises that the dates of their inscriptions and

coins are years of the 'Saka era. Secondly,(19) it

has been maintained by most scholars that the latest

Kshatrapa date 310 furnished by Kshatrapa

Rudrasi^mba's coin, if referred to the 'Saka era is

equivalent to 388-389 A. D. and that this date so

much approximates to 82 G. E. i. e. 401-402 A.D., the

earliest date in Malwa of the Guptas the successors

of the Kshatrapas, that it is almost certain that the

Kshatrapas dated their inscriptions and coins

according to the 'Saka era. Thirdly, Ptolemy, the

well-known Greek geographer, writing shortly after

150 A. D. speaks of Pu.lum & #65533;yi as king of the Dekkan

reigning at Pai.tha.n.

___

(18) In a rather mutilated Nasik insoription,

Ushavadata calls himself a 'Saka. And the title

of Gotamiputra 'S & #65533;taskar.ni, viz.,

'Saka-Yavana-Pahlavanish & #65533;dana seems to support

it. Prof. Oldenberg, however (Ind. Ant. X, p.

233, note 65), doubts the correctness of the

reading ''Sakasa' before 'Ushavad & #65533;tasa' as the

letters preceding it have peeled off. But this

does not appear to be plausible, for the number

of the letters that are lost before ''Sakasa'

can be accurately determined, and they can very

well he restored from the other insoriptions of

Ushavad & #65533;ta. It is gratifying to see that both

B & #65533;hler and Bhagwanlal Indraji take ''Sakasa' as

a word by itself, connect it with 'Ushavad & #65533;tasa

and thus make Ushavadata a 'Saka (Arch. Sur.

West. Ind. IV, 101, note 3; Bomb. Gaz., XIV,

577-8). M.r. Rapson is inclined to suppose that

the Kshatrapas were Pahlavas and the Principal

argument he relies upon, is that from the Girnar

inscription of Rudradaman it appears that he had

appointed a Pehlava named Suvi's & #65533;kha as his

viceroy, implying thereby that the work of

administration could not have been entrusted to

any other than a person of the same tribe or

race as that of Rudradaman (J. R. A. S. 1899, p.

377). But this implication has little weight,,

for we shall have then to suppose that Nahap & #65533;na

was a Hindu, since from a Junnar inscription, we

learn that he had a viceroy named Ayama who was

certainly a Hindu as he belonged to the

Vatsagotra. For the grounds on which I hold that

the Northern Kshatrapas were 'Sakas, see note 41

below.

(19) This form of the argument appears to have first

suggested itself to B & #65533;hler and Bhagwanlal

Indraji (Arch. Sur. West. Ind. V, 73; Bom. Gaz,

XIV, 620) but h ey missed the true conclusion,

as they were mistaken with regard to the initial

year of the Gupta era. But it seems to have been

successfully applied to determine the epoch of

the Gupta era in the Early Hist. of the Dekk.

pp. 130-31. When, however, the initial point of

the Gupta era was known beyond all doubt, this

reasoning was used by B & #65533;hler to show that the

Kshatrapa dates rea 'Saka years (Die Indischen

Inschriften, & c., p. 47).See also Rapson on

Indian coins, p.22.

 

 

p.275

 

Pulum & #65533;yi was therefore not much prior to 150 A. D.

The latest date of Nahap & #65533;na is 46, known from the

Junnar inscription of his minister Ayama. Not long

after this date, Gotam & #65533;putra 'S & #65533;takar.ni exterminated

the Kshahar & #65533;ta dynasty, to which Nahap & #65533;na belonged.

So that shortly after 124 A. D., supposing the date

46 to be a 'Saka year, Pu.lum & #65533;yi became king. This

brings Pu.lum & #65533;yi sufficiently close to the time of

Ptolemy so as to leave little doubt that the

Kshatrapa dates refer to the 'Saka era. Let us now

proceed a step further. Almost all antiquarians

concur in placing Kanishka posterior to 'So.dasa, a

northern Kshatrapa, on paleographic evidence.

Further, I maintain that on similar paleographic

grounds Nahap & #65533;na must be supposed to be prior to

'So.d & #65533;sa. Three inscriptions which refer themselves to

the reign of 'So.d & #65533;sa have been published--one found

at Mora and the other two at Mathur?(20) If we

compare the characters of those inscriptions with

those of the Nasik, Karle; and Junnar inscriptions of

the time of Nahap & #65533;na, we shall find that the former,

although agreeing with the latter in many respects,

yet occasionally have later forms, which show that

they belong to a later period, hut a period not very

distant from that of the characters of Ushavadata's

inscriptions. The lower part of their ya ()is more

rounded, and the strokes go

up equally high in a good many cases, and sometimes

the character ()has a loop to the

left in almost the Kushana fashion. The lower

horizontal base-line of na ()

and .na(I) bends slightly lower down on either side in

most cases, while in almost all cases, it is

perfectly straight in Ushavad & #65533;ta's inscriptions.

There are two instances of bha ()

agreeing with those of the Kushana period. The nether

part of the letter ra (J)is a curve open to the left

and the subscript ra () is

similarly denoted by a curve turning to the left.

These differences of characters cannot be ascribed to

the influence of locality. For, in the first place,

___

 

(20) Arch. Sur. Reports, XX., pl. V., Ins. No. 4;

Ibid. III., pl. XIII., ins. No. 1; Ep Ind. II.,

199; Vienna Ori. Jour. V. 177: Here B & #65533;hler reads

the date 42 with hesitation, as the signs for 40

and 70 are almost alike. See also J. R. A.

S.1894, p. 531. But the date is certainly 72, as

has subsequently been corrected by B & #65533;hler

himself (Ep. Ind. IV., 55, and note 2). The date

of an inscription of V & #65533;sudeva had similarly been

wrongly read by Cunningham as 44 (Arch. Sur.

Reports III., 32, No. 8), and his reading of the

date was adopted by Bhagwanlal Indraji, who was

puzzled thereby (lnd. Ant. XJ., 129) .

Cunningham, however, subsequently showed the

correct reading of the date to be 74 and not 44

(N. Chr. 1892, p.50, note 6).

 

 

p.276

 

they do not occur in earlier inscriptions at Mathura

itself, e.g. No. 5, Ep. Ind. Vol. II., Pt. XII.

Secondly, they are to be met with in other

inscriptions of the same period at different

places,--cf. the Nasik and Kanheri inscriptions of

Gotam & #65533;putra Yaj~na 'Sr?'S & #65533;tarkar.ni and the Girnar

inscription of Rudradaman. In the Nasik inscription,

ya presents the first variety, i.e. its strokes go up

almost equally high. But in the Kanheri inscription,

ya is engraved with a loop towards the left. 'Ya' of

this second type may also be noted in the Girnar

inscription of Rudradaman, a contemporary of Yaj~na

'Sr?'S & #65533;takar.ni. The developed form of 'bha' of the

time of 'So.d & #65533;sa is noticeable in these inscriptions

of Ya~nja 'Sr? 'S & #65533;takar.ni and Rudrad & #65533;man. The

curvature in the base-line of na and.na is also to be

seen in these inscriptions, though it is more

distinct in the Girnar than in the Nasik or Kanheri

inscription. Likewise, ' ra' whether medial or

otherwise, terminates in a curve to the left in all'

these inscriptions. These characteristics cannot thus

be said to be local divergences. The conclusion may

therefore be safely drawn that 'So.d & #65533;sa was later than

Nahap & #65533;na, but as the transitional state of the

characters of his inscriptions shows, there was no

very great interval between them. Now, there is a

general consensus of opinion on the point that

'So.d & #65533;sa was earlier than Kanishka; and we have just

seen that Nahap & #65533;na was anterior to 'Sod & #65533;sa. A

fortiori, Nahap & #65533;na was prior to Kanishka. But as the

inscriptions of the time of Nahap & #65533;na are dated, as

has just been shown, in the 'Saka era, Kanishka could

not possibly have started that era.

Some scholars have argued on the data furnished

by Buddhist legends that Kanishka flourished in the

latter part of the first century A.D. The northern

Buddhists place Kanishka 400 years after the

Parinirv & #65533;na, and as A'soka is placed by Hiuen Tsiang

only a hundred years after Buddha, it is contended

that the mistake lies with the exact date when the

Nirv & #65533;na came off, but that it is certain that A'soka

was chronologically prior to Kanishka by 300 years,

and that therefore Kanishka lived towards the middle

of the first century. And as it is clear that some

era dates from the time of Kanishka, who lived about

50 A. D., it is maintained that he started the 'Saka

era.(21) Even conceding for the moment that Kanishka

flourished as early as the epoch of the 'Saka era, he

can by no means be regarded as the founder of that

era, unless it is proved that he was a 'Saka. Further,

in my

___

 

(21) Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. I,

p. 56, note 200.

 

 

p.277

 

humble opinion mere legends afford a very frail

foundation on which to base a theory especially when

they conflict with established propositions, and even

contradict one another. Thus, the northern Buddhists

fix the date of the Greek king Menander, or Milinda

as the Indians called him, to be five centuries after

the Parinirv?na. This would seem to point to the

priority of Kanishka over Menander by one century--a

conclusion which no student of ancient Indian History

will admit. Nay, the legend about Kanishka just

stated is incompatible with other legends about the

same king. Sung-yun mentions a tradition according to

which Buddha predicted that three hundred years after

his Nirv?na, Kanishka would rule over the country

of Gandh & #65533;ra, and the prophecy literally came to

pass.(22) Again, there is one legend of an Arhat, who

lived 500 years after the Nirv?na, and who, in his

short autobiographical description, states that in

his previous life he was a bat, and by listening to

the words of Buddhist Scriptures in that life he

became an ascetic in his present life, and was one of

the five hundred monks whom Kanishka with P & #65533;r'svika

summoned to draw up the Vibh & #65533;sh? 'Sastra.(23) This

implies that Kanishka reigned 50O years after the

Nirv?na. In short, as the different legends about

Kanishka assign him different dates, none of these

can be utilised for the purpose of determining the

period when he lived. The theory of Kanishka being

the founder of the 'Saka era on the ground of

Buddhist legends thus rests on a very unstable basis.

We have thus seen that Kanishka cannot be the

founder of the 'Saka era, and that the dates of the

inscriptions of Kanishka, Huvishka, and V & #65533;sudeva

cannot therefore refer to that era. In order to

determine their English equivalent, it is essential

first to settle who was the founder of the 'Saka era.

Three different views have been held by scholars in

respect of the origin of that era. Of these, the

theory started by Fergusson and upheld by Prof.

Oldenberg, viz., that Kanishka originated that era,

has just been examined, and shown to be untenable. We

shall now consider the other two theories suggested

by Cunningham and Bhagwanlal Indraji respectively.

Cunningham regards Chash.tana to be the founder of

the 'Saka era, as the dates on the coins and

inscriptions of his successors are undoubtedly 'Saka

years.(24) The dates of Nahap & #65533;na, he says, must be

reckoned

___

 

(22) Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. I.,

intro. ciii,

(23) Ibid. Vol. I., pp. 116 and 117.

(24) N. Chr. 1888, pp. 232, and 233; Ibid. 1892,

p.44.

 

 

p.278

 

from the time of Maues (100 B. C.)(25) Nahap & #65533;na thus

flourished about the middle of the first century B.

C. He places Gotam & #65533;putra 'S & #65533;takar.ni about 78 A. D.,

and the Khakharatas, who are said in Nasik

Inscription No. 18 to have been exterminated by

Gotam & #65533;putra 'S & #65533;ta-kar.ni, are, in his opinion, the

descendants of Nahapana. He thus makes the former a

contemporary of Chash.tana, maintaining that the

mention of Chash.tana and Pulum & #65533;yi by Ptolemy proves

neither that the two kings were contemporaries nor

that they were not far removed in time from the Greek

geographer (150 A. D.) . Similarly, he makes

contemporaries, Pulum & #65533;yi and Jayad & #65533;man the sons of

Gotam & #65533;putra 'S & #65533;takar.ni and Chash.tana respectively.

He further assigns a reign of twenty-five years to

Jayadaman (100-125 A.D.) and also to his son

Rudradaman (125-150 A.D.). This is in short the view

of Cunningham regarding the chronology of the

Andhrabh.rityas and the Kshatrapas which he could not

but adopt to support his theory that Chash.tana

started the 'Saka era. The chief characteristic of

this view is that it is based on a number of

improbable suppositions. The foremost of these is the

thesis that the way in which Ptolemy speaks of

Chash.tana and Pulum & #65533;yi does not in the least

indicate that they were contemporaries or were not

separated by a long interval from the former. The

most staunch advocate of this opinion was Dr. B & #65533;hler

himself.(26) But when it was ably contested and

refuted by Dr. Bhandarkar(27) and M. Senart, he was

forced to give it up,(28) and so far as my knowledge

goes, no scholar of any repute now lends any

countenance to it. Similarly, Cunningham insinuates

that the Khakhar & #65533;tas, the descendants of Nahap & #65533;na

reigned upwards of a century before they were

uprooted by Gotam & #65533;putra S & #65533;takar.ni but almost all

scholars are now agreed on the point,(29) that there

was no great interval between Nahap & #65533;na and

'S & #65533;takarni, since no Khakhar & #65533;ta prince places himself

between them in any inscriptions in Western India and

since a grant is made by 'S & #65533;takarni of a piece of

land till

___

 

(25) For Cunningham's view of the chronology of the

Andhras and the Kshatrapas, see Coins of Ancient

India, p. 104 ff. In N. Chr. 1888, pp. 232 and

233, however, Cunningham refers the dates of

Nahapana to the fourth Selenkidan century

commencing with 12 B. C.

(26) Arch. Sur. West;. Ind. V., 72; Ind. Ant. XII.,

273-4.

(27) Dek. His., pp. 130, 131; Ind. Ant. XXI.,

205-206.

(28) Die lndischen Inschriften, & c., pp. 56-57.

(29) Ind. Ant. X, 225; Die Indischen Inschriften & c.,

P. 57 and note 2; Jour. Asia. 1897, pp. 124-125.

 

 

p.279

 

then in the possession of Usabhad & #65533;ta who it is

alleged can be no other than Usabhad & #65533;ta of the Karli

and Ushavad & #65533;ta of the Nasik inscription, the

well-known son-in-law of Nahap & #65533;na. If we set aside

these suppositions, the weakness of Cunningham's

theory is at once obvious. For then the combination

that can be brought forward and has actually been

brought forward(30)by scholars is as follows: Shortly

after 46, the latest date of Nahap & #65533;na, followed a war

with Gotam & #65533;putra 'Satakar.ni who destroyed the

Khakhar & #65533;ta race.'Satakar.ni reigned at least 24 years

according to the Nasik inscription No. 14. Now, Nasik

inscription No. 13, dated in his 18th year records

the donation of a village in the district of

Govardhana which was formerly included in the

dominions of Nahap & #65533;na, so that the victory of

'S & #65533;takarni occurred before the 18th year of his

reign, Let us suppose that the event came off in the

15th regnal year of Gotam & #65533;putra 'Satakar.ni. He was

succeeded to the throne by his son Pu.lumayi. Since

Gotam & #65533;putra S & #65533;takar.ni reigned for at least 24 years

(Nasik inscription No. 14), his reign comes to a

close nine years after the date of his conquest of

Nahapana i. e. the year 47, so that about the year 57

of the era which Nahap & #65533;na employed, may be placed the

accession of Pa.lumayi who was contemporary with

Chash.tana. Now, if the dates of Nahap & #65533;na are to be

reckoned from the time of Maues as Cunningham tells

us, Pulum & #65533;yi lived in the middle of the first century

B.C, He cannot thus be made a contemporary of

Chash.tana who reigned according to Cunningham from 78

to 100 A.D. Both of them, again, are separated from

Ptolemy by a much greater interval than is probable,

on the view that the Greek geographer's information

was not of a much earlier date than when he wrote

about the princes, If on the contrary, the dates of

Nahap & #65533;na are referred to the 'Saka era, Pulum & #65533;yi

came to the throne about 135 A.D. and this brings

him sufficiently close to the time of Ptolemy, But if

Nahap & #65533;na is supposed to have employed the 'Saka era

as is generally accepted, Cunningham's theory of

Chash.tana being the originator of that era falls to

the ground.

___

 

(30) The view stated here is that held by B & #65533;hler

(Ind. ant, XII., 273; Die Indischen Inschriften

& c. pp. 57-58). This view has no doubt been

adopted by most scholars (Ind. Ant. XXI. 204;

Jour. Asia. 1897 tome X., p. 124 and ff); but I

cannot agree with B & #65533;hler in regard to the order

of succession of the Andhrabhritya kings

determined by him, as well as with respect to

his opinion that Gotam & #65533;putra 'S & #65533;taskar.ni reigned

in the Dekkan. For the grounds on which my

dissent is based, see Dek. His., P, 19 and

note 1 and ff.

 

 

p.280

 

Similarly, there is a general consensus of

opinion amongst scholars that the duration of

Jayad & #65533;man's reign was a very short one an account of

the extreme rareness of his coins. According to

Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji, his reign lasted for three

years.(31) Whatever the short period may be which is

to be ascribed to Jayad & #65533;man, the period of

twenty-five years which Cunningham has assigned to

him is in every way improbable. Next, it is curious

that Cunningham makes the reign of Rudrad & #65533;man extend

from 125 to 150 A.D., because the date which his

Girnar inscription bears is 72 which, as Cunningham

rightly considers it to be a 'Saka year. answers to

150 A. D. But this date is the date of the bursting

of the embankment of the Sudar'sana lake and not of

the incision of the inscription. There is therefore

good reason to suppose that Rudrad & #65533;man's reign did

not come to a close in 72 'Saka, i. e., 150 A.D. as

Cunningham thinks. Further, his next two sucessors

were D & #65533;maghsada and Rudrasimha.(32) The earliest and

latest dates of the latter are 102 and 108

respectively. In all likelihood therefore,

Rudrasi^mha began to reign not earlier than 102.

The scarcity of D & #65533;maghsada's coins points to his

having reigned not more than ten years, so that we

get 92 as the approximate year when Rudrad & #65533;man ceased

to reign. Rudrad & #65533;man therefore appears to have

continued to reign long after 72 'Saka. If we reject

as improbable the suppositions to which Cunningham

has resorted, the conclusion we come to is as

follows:since Rudrad & #65533;man reigned up to 92 'Saka, in

all probability his reign did not commence before 61

'Saka; and making an allowance of ten years for his

father Jayad & #65533;man, which can searcely be exceeded

since his coins are very rare we have fifty years as

the duration of Chash.tana's reign, if we hold with

Cunningham that Chashtana started the 'Saka era. It

is true that a period of fifty years is in itself not

impossible, but is extremely improbable unless the

contrary is proved. And as a matter of fact, the

coins of Chas.tana that have been found are very few,

and this points to a much shorter period than that of

fifty years. We thus find that in order to maintain

his theory, Cunningham had to make a number of

improbable suppositions and bring to his aid these no

longer upheld.

According to Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji, the 'Saka

era dates from the coronation of Nahap & #65533;na and marks

his conquest of Gujarat and

___

 

(31) History of Gujarat (Bom Gazet. Vol. I, Pt. I.)

pp. 33-34.

(32) D & #65533;maghsada is supposed by Pondit Bhagwanlal to

have been suncceeded by his son J & #65533;v & #65533;daman. But

Mr. Rapson has shown that D & #65533;maghsada was

succeeded by his brother Rudrasimho (J. R. A. S.

1899, p. 375).

 

 

p.281

 

Western Dekkan.(33) The latest known date 46 of

Nahap & #65533;na is therefore the 46th year of his reign as

well as of the 'Saka era. and the Pandit finds a

confirmation of this in the effigy of Nahap & #65533;na on his

coins the type of which passes from his youth to his

old age. Now, in the first place this theory cannot

be entitled to our confidence unless it is shown

beyond all doubt that Nahap & #65533;na was an independent

sovereign. I think, we may safely hold that the very

title Kshatrapa points to the subordinate position of

the person who assumes it unless the contrary is

proved. So that Nahap & #65533;na's title Kshatrapa makes it

highly probable that he was a dependent prince.

Secondly, as Dr. B & #65533;hler has pointed out, the

circumstance that on his coins his name is given in

the Kharosh.th?character as well as in the southern

alphabet is an indication of his connection with the

north and northwest where the Indo-Scythians

ruled.(34) It is therefore almost certain that

Nahap & #65533;na was not an independent ruler. Precisely the

same line of reasoning holds good in the case of

Chash.tana.(35) Neither Nahap & #65533;na nor Chash.tana can

therefore be the founder of any era, and the

originator thereof must naturally be looked for in

the imperial 'Saka dynasty, whose might overshadowed

the north and northwest of India. Again on the theory

that Nahap & #65533;na founded the era we shall have to

suppose that he reigned for 46 years at least, his

latest recorded date being as stated above 46.

Whatever support this supposition may derive from the

look of effigy of Nahap & #65533;na on his coins, young and

old, the improbability of it is evident, as the coins

of Nahap & #65533;na have rarely

___

 

(33) History of Gujarat, pp. 26-27.

(34) Die Indischen Inschriften, & c., p. 57.

(35) I cannot but think that the assumption of the

title Kshatrapa or Mah & #65533;kshatrapa by these

Western Satraps at any rate is not without

significance. Those who were Kshatrapas were

subordinate to the Mah & #65533;kshatrapas or some

foreign kings who conquered them. Those who are

styled Mah & #65533;kshagtrapas were independent and owed

fealty to none. Nahap & #65533;na on his coins and in his

son-in-law Ushavad & #65533;ta's inscriptions (dated 41,

42, and 45) is called simply Kshatrapa. It is in

the Junnar inscription of his minister Ayama

(dated 46) that the title Mah & #65533;kshatrapa is first

conjoined to his name. This shown that before

the year 46 Nahap & #65533;na was only a Kshatrapa and

occupied a subordinate position. Now, if the

dates of Nahap & #65533;na are to be referred to the

'Saka era as held by most antiquarians and even

by Pandit Bhagwanlal, he cannot be the founder

of the 'Saka era, inasmuch as in the years 41,

42, and 45 which are thus 'Saka years, he was

not an independent ruler. Similarly on some of

his coins Chas.tana is styled Kshatrapa and on

some Mahakshatrapa. This also indicates that at

the beginning he was like Nahap & #65533;na a dependent

prince, though afterwards he rose to independent

power.

 

 

p.282

 

been found. And if the Pandit assigns a reign of

three years only to Javad & #65533;man, father of Rudrad & #65533;man,

because of the rareness of his coins, it is

inexplicable why he should regard Nahap & #65533;na as having

reigned for 46 years at least when the coins of the

latter also are rare. Thirdly, if the 'Saka era had

been instituted by Nahap & #65533;na, it would have died with

his death or with that of his successor, whosoever

the Khakhar & #65533;ta prince may be whom Gotam & #65533;putra

'S & #65533;takarni vanquished. There is no reason why the

princes of Chash.tana's family should have dated

their coins and inscriptions in Nahap & #65533;na's era,

because, first, they did not belong, like the latter,

to the Khakhar & #65533;ta race, of which, Nasik inscription

No. 18 informs us, Gotam & #65533;putra 'S & #65533;takarni left no

remnant; secondly, Nahap & #65533;na's dynasty was by no means

politically superior to Chash.tana's; and, thirdly,

Nahap & #65533;na's era had a standing of scarcely above half

a century. I hold that Nahapana's and Chashtana's

family both used the 'Saka era because they derived

their power from and represented in the south the

imperial 'Saka dynasty, whence the 'Saka era

originated.(36)

It was shown before that Kanishka cannot be the

founder of the 'Saka era, and we have now shown that

Cunningham's conjecture that Chash.tana started the

era is highly improbable, and that Pandit

Bhagwanlal's theory that the era was instituted by

Nahap & #65533;na is also untenable. Let us now proceed to

determine the question: who was, then, the originator

of the 'Saka era? One of the inscriptions on the

___

 

(36) In his 'Nasik: P?n.du Le.na Caves' (Bom. Gaz.

XIV., 617), Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji makes

the following most learned remarks: " This era

(i.e. the era used in the Kshatrapa inscriptions

and coins) cannot have been started by Nahap & #65533;na,

as it is improbable that Chash.tana would have

adopted an era begun by another Kshatrapa of a

different family. The era must therefore belong

to their common overlord. Who this overlord was

cannot be settled until coins of Nahap & #65533;na and

Chash.tana are found with the Greek legend clear

and entire. But all the Kathiawar Kshatrapas

have adopted on their coins the Greek legend

which appears on the obverse of Nahap & #65533;na's

coins, and this seems to be the name Vonones

differently spelt. " I am perfectly at one with

Pandit Bhagwanlal here in maintaining that the

era employed by the Kshatrapas, which is

identical with the 'Saka era, must have been

originated by their overlord, who as I have

shown further, is no other than Vonones, though

the grounds on which the Pandit bases his

conclusion are not sound, inasmuch as the Greek

legend on the obverse of Nahapana and

Chash.tana's coins, as has recently been shown

by Mr. Rapson, is a mere transliteration of the

Indian legend on the reverse (J. R. A. S., 1899,

pp. 359-60), and does not contain the name of

Vonones. But the Pandit gave up this correct

view, and held in his History of Gujarat that

the 'Saka era was started by Nahapana.

 

 

p.283

 

Mathura Lion Capital(37) makes an honorific mention

of the Mah & #65533;chbatrava Kusula? Patika. They were all

engraved in the time of R & #65533;jula or R & #65533;jubula and his

son 'Su.d?sa or 'So.d & #65533;sa(38) . The Taxila

copper-plate grant,(39) which bears the date 78 and

refers itself to the reign of Moga, was issued by

Patika, son of Chhatrapa Liaka Kusulaka. The

identification of Patika of the Mathura inscription

with Patika of the Taxila plate is scarcely subject

to doubt especially on account of the tribal name

Kusulaka. It also follows that R & #65533;jubula and Liaka on

the one hand, and 'So.d & #65533;sa and Patika on the other,

were contemporaries. There is a Mathura inscription

which is dated in the year 72 in the reign of

'So.d & #65533;sa.(40) This year 72 of the time of 'So.d & #65533;sa

and the year 78 of the time of Patika must therefore

belong to one and the same era since the two

Kshatrapas were contemporaries.

It has been shown that the dates of the Western

Kshatrapa inscriptions refer to the 'Saka era.

Nahap & #65533;na's latest date is 46, which is therefore a

'Saka year. 'So.d & #65533;sa's date is 72. I have indicated

above that 'So.d & #65533;sa was undoubtedly posterior to

Nahap & #65533;na, but that they were not far removed in time

from one another, So that the date 72 of 'So.d & #65533;sa in

all likelihood belongs to the 'Saka era equally with

the date 46 of Nahap & #65533;na, especially as, like the

latter, the former was a Kshatrapa and a 'Saka.(41)

And, further, Patika was a contemporary of 'So.d & #65533;sa.

His date 78 must also therefore be supposed to be a

'Saka Again, the Taxila plate refers itself to the

reign of Moga, who has been identified with Maues of

the coins.Maues was thus the overlord of Chhatrapa

Liaka, father of Patika. The wording of the Taxila

plate is [ " Sa^mvatsa] raye a.thasatatimae 20 20 20

10 4 4 maharayasa maha.mtasa [Mo]gasa, " & c. Some

scholars have held that the year 78 refers to an era

founded by Moga.(42) But Dr. B & #65533;hler has pointed out

that the year 78 is not of any era started

___

 

(37) J. R. A. S. (N. S.), 1894, p. 537.

(38) Ibid. p. 530.

(39) Ep. Ind. IV., p. 54 and ff.

(40) See note 18 supra.

(41) One inscription on the Mathura Lion Capital is

engraved in honour of the whole Sakastana (J. R.

A. S.,1894, p. 540). Sakastana is 'Sakasth & #65533;na,

i.e., the land of the 'Sakas, and corresponds to

the Sakastene of Isidorus, the Sejist & #65533;n of the

early Muhammadan writers, and the Sist & #65533;n of the

present day. The name clearly implies that the

'Sakas had occupied and permanently settled in

that province. And unless we suppose Rajubula,

end 'So.d & #65533;sa to be 'Sakas, it is inconceivable

why there should be an honorific mention of

Sakastana in one of the Mathura Lion Capital

inscriptions which record the gifts of the

members of their dynasty.

(42) J R. A. S. 1894, p.553. ?

 

 

p.284

 

by Moga, but of the era used in his time.(43) This

appears to be the correct explanation and similar

wording from other inscriptions might be quoted in

support of it.(44) It is thus clear that the year 78

of the Taxila plate refers to the 'Saka era, and that

this era was in vogue in the time of Moga or Mauerr,

a prince of the 'Saka dynasty which held direct sway

orer the north and the northwest of the country. And

if our object is to find Out who was the originator

of the 'Saka era, we must fix upon the first 'Saka

sovereign of this dynasty to which Maues belonged.

Various coins bearing oi-lingual legends, of

kings such as Vonones, Spalirises, Azas, & c., whose

'Saka nationality is unquestionable, have been found,

but the order of their succession has not yet been

satisfactorily detertmined, although the legends

enable us to do so. Not a single coin of Vonones has

yet been discovered whereon both the Greek and

Kharosh.th?legends give his name. But the coins, the

Greek legends of which mention the name of Vonone,

and the Kharos.th? those of other personages, are

not few. Now, I believe that the prince whose name

occur in the Greek legend on the obverse is the

paramount ruler, and the personage whose name is

mentioned in the Kharosh.th?legend on the reverse is

a viceroy appointed by that sovereign, especially as

we find that while certain coins bear the names of

different persons on the reverses, they have the name

of one and the same king on all the obverses. The

titles affixed to the name of Vonones are Basileus

Basileon Megas which unmistakably point to his

supreme power. The different personages whose names

are mentioned in the Kharosh.th? legends are -- (i)

Spalahores, who is said to be Mah & #65533;r & #65533;ja-bhr & #65533;t?

(ii)

Spalgadames, son of Spalahores, and (iii) Azas.(45)

Spalahores, Spalgdames and Azas were, therefore,

subordinate to Vonones. It is also plain that during

the life-time of Vonones, Spalahores died and his son

Spalgadames succeeded him to his viceroyalty, since

in addition to the coins which bear the father's

name, there are others, the reverses of which give

the son's name, with the name of the same overlord

Vonones on the obverses of the coins of both. Next

come the

___

 

(43) Ep. Ind. IV., 56, remark 1.

(44) See e.g. 'So.d & #65533;sa's inscription (Ep. Ind. II,

199); Rudrasi^mha's inscription (Ind. Ant. X:,

157); and Rudrasena's inscrption (J. B. B. R. A.

S. VIII., 234 ff.; Ind. Ant. XII., 32). In all

these inscriptions the genitive of the name of

the prince is connected with the year sometimes

preceding it and sometimes following it as ill

the above.

(45) N. Chr. 1890, pp. 136-138; Gard., pp. 98-99.

 

 

p.285

 

coins of Spalirises which present two varieties: (i)

coins bearing his name alone in both the legends and

(ii) coins on which his name occurs on the obverse in

the Greek legend, and those of others on the reverse

in the Kharosh.th? The names on the reverse are --

(i) Spalgadames and(ii) Azas.(46) These last were,

therefore, the viceroys of Spalirises. It has just

been stated that Spalahores died when his overlord

Vonones was alive, and that after him the viceroyship

was held by his son Spalgadames. And no coins on

which the name of Spalahores is associated with that

of Spalirises have! been obtained. Vonones,

therefore, as having the father and the son for his

viceroys, mast be the earlier prince, while

Spalirises, who had the son only for his viceroy,

must be the later. Spalirises was, therefore, the

successor of Vonones. Similarly, the coins of Azas

may be distinguished into three classes; (i) those in

which his name is found in the Kharosh.th?legend on

the reverse in conjunction with those of Vonones and

Spalirises in the Greek on the obverse; (ii) those

which contain his name in both the legends with

titles indicative of supreme power; and (iii) those

which bear his name in the Greek legend on the

obverse and mention the names of Azilises and

Aspavarm? in the Kharosh.th?on the reverse.(47) The

first class was issued when he was in a subordinate

position with reference to Vonones and Spalirises,

and the last two indicate that Azas was a paramount

sovereign when they were struck. Azas therefore could

not have been a supreme ruler during the time of

Vonones and Spalirises, but came to the throne after

them and then became an overlord. The coins of

Azilises are likewise of three distinct classes: (i)

coins whereon his name is restricted to the

Kharosh.th? reverse, and that of Azas mentioned in

the Greek obverse; (ii) those in both the legends on

which his name is given, and is coupled with the

epithets of a paramount sovereign; and (iii) two

coins at least on which his name occurs on the

obverse in the Greek legend, and that of Azas on the

reverse in the Kharosh.th?(48) The first class shows

that Azilises was a governor, and hence subordinate

to Azas, when the latter was alive, while the rest

two classes point to his supreme power. Azilises was

therefore the successor of Azas and became a

sovereign after the death of the latter. I have just

stated that on two coins

___

(46) N. Chr. 1890, pp. 138-139; in the notice of coin

No. 7 an p. 138, the heading given is

'Spalahores end Spalgadames, ' but instead of

Spalahores, Spalirises is wanted; Card. pp. 100

and 102.

(47) N. Chr. 1890, pp. 140-182 and 170; Gard. pp.

73-92 and 173.

(48) N. Chr. 1890, pp. 153-155 and 149; Gard, pp.

93-97 and 92.

 

 

p.286

 

at least the names of Azilises and Azas are found on

the Greek obverse and the Kharosh.th? reverse

respectively. This indicates that Azas was

subordinate to Azilises. But this Azas must not be

identifed with the Azas just metioned. We must

suppose that there were two princes of that name, one

the predecessor and the other the successor of

Azilises, and it is not unlikely that some of the

coins hitherto presumed to be issued by Azas I.were

really struck by Azas II. Thus, the order of

succession of these 'Saka kings deduced from all

examination of the legends on their coins is as

follows: first comes: Vonones, then Spalirises, then

Azas I., after him Azilises and after him Azas II,

There remains one more 'Saka prince named Maues whose

coins also have been discovered. And now the question

arises: where to place him? whether to place him

before Vonones or after Azas II.?

Before we proceed to decide this point, it is of

vitalimportance to consider the views of Percy

Gardner and Cunningham in respect of the succession

of these 'Saka rulers. Percy Gardner places Maues

earlier than ally other of these 'Saka princes and

remarks that ''he ruled some Scythic invaders who had

entered India not through the Kabul valley " but by

the Karakoram pass. Azas, according to him, was the

immediate successor of Maues. He further observes

that Vonones and Spalirises, " who from the

find-spots of their coins seem to have reigned in

Kabul, " may have been tributary to Azas.(49) Various

other remarks have been made by him regarding the

relationship of these kings, but with these we are

not concerned.(50) Now,

___

 

(49) Gard. Intro. XI. ff.

(50) Spalahores on his coins calls himself

Mah & #65533;rdi & #65533;blr & #65533;t? Who this

mah & #65533;r & #65533;ja was Percy

Gardner is unable to determine. But I think that

almost certainly, Spalahore was a brother of

Vonones, as the latter clearly appears lo be his

overlord, and therefore the king whose brother

Spalahores was, can be no other than Vonones.

Similarly, one class of Spalirises' coins bears

on the Greek obverse the legend Basileus

Adelphos Spalirises, and on the Kharosh.th?

reverse Mah & #65533;r & #65533;ja bhr & #65533;ta. Dhramiasa

Spalirisasa.

This, in my opinion, is indicative of his

inferior position at the time when they were

struck. And as we have seen that before

spallrises became a sovereign. Vonones was the

paramount ruler, it can soaroely be seriously

doubted that he too like Spalahores was a

viceroy appointed by and a brother of Vonones.

Vonones was thus the supreme ruler, and

appointed his brothers Spaliriscs and Spalahores

viceroys to govern the provinces conquered by

him, and after the death of the latter,

conferred the viceroyalty on his nephew, i.e.

Spalahores' son, Spalgadames. This seems to my

mind the relationship in which they stood to one

another. But how Azilises, Vononcs, Spalirises

and Spalahorcs were the sons of Azas as Gardnor

maintains is quite inexplicable to me.

 

 

p.287

 

first, do the coins show that Vonones and Spalirises

were tributary to Azas? Whenever Azas strikes coins

together with Vonones and Spalirises, the names of

the last two kings occur in the Greek and that of

Azas in the Kharoshth?legend. Prim?facie, when the

name of one prince is in the Greek legend and of

another in the kharosh.th? the latter must be looked

upon as tributary to the former. The Kharosh.th?

legend on the coins was obviously meant for the

Indian subjects of the province where they were

current. When both the Greek and Kharosh.th?legends

contain the name of one king only, it must be

supposed that he was the sole as well as the direct

ruler of the territory. But when these legends give

different names, it is nattural to infer that the

personage whose name is found in the Kharosh.th?

governed the province directly, and the prince whose

name is placed in the G;reek was the sovereign under

whom he held the office of viceroy, On all the coins

whereon the names of Azas and Vonones or Spalirises

are associated, that of the first is invariably

restricted to the Kharosh.th? and those of the last

two to the Greek legend. Alias, therefore, far from

being the overlord of Vonones or Spalirises, was

himself their viceroy during their life-time, If it

is, however, supposed for the moment that the prince,

whose name is found in the Kharosh.th?legend, must be

considered paramount, then Aspavarma who strikes in

conjunction with Azas and whose name is mentioned in

the Kharosh.th? whereas that of Azas is confined to

the Greek legend, must be regarded as the overlord

of Azas. Nevertheless, Gardner thinks him to be a

subordinate of Azas.(51) again, we know that

Spalahores, Spalgadames and Azas strike coins

together with Vonones, the names of the first three

being restricted to the Kharosh.th?legends. If we now

suppose for the sake of argument that princes whose

names occur in the Kharosh.th?legends are sovereigns,

we shall have to infer that Vonones was tributary

also to Spalahores and Spalgadames, when, as a matter

of fact, the titles Basileus Basileon Mages are

conjoined with the name of Vonones and the epithet

Dharmika only with the names of Spalahores and

Spalgadames. The fact, therefore, of Azas' name being

confined to the Kharosh.th? while those of Vonones

and Spalirises are mentioned in the Greek legend,

clearly shows that Vonones and Spalirises, far from

being tributary to Azas, were each in his turn the

overlord of Azas. Again, as I have said above, when

certain coins give the names of

___

 

(51) Gard. Intro. XLIII.

 

 

p.288

 

different persons on the reverses, but bear the name

of one and the same prince on the obverses, the

latter must evidently be considered to be the supreme

lord of the former. We have seen that there are coins

which contain the names of Spalahores, Spalgadames

and Azas on the reverses, but have the name of one

and the same prince Vonones on the obverses. Vonones

was therefore the overlord not only of Spalahores and

Spalgadames, but of Azas also. Likewise, coins have

been found, as stated heretofore, the reverses of

which give the names of Spalgadames and Azas and the

obverses of which bear the name of Spalirises only.

This shows that not only Spalgadames, but Azas also,

acknowledged the supremacy of Spalirises. In short,

the statement that Vonones end Spalirises were

tributary to Azas has no ground to stand upon. On the

contrary, the assertion that Vonones and Spalirises

were the overlords of Azas is in every way entitled

to our confidence. Whether or not Maues was the first

'Saka prince, as Gardner supposes, will shortly be

considered, but with regard to his remark about the

route by which the Scythic invaders, headed by Maues,

poured into India, we may at this stage draw

attention to the refutation thereof by Cnnningham,

who says: " I feel quite certain that they could not

have come through Kashmir by the Kharakoram pass, as

suggested by Professor Gardner, as that pass, instead

of being open all the year round, is closed during

winter and could never be traversed by an army even

in summer. " (52) Cunningham further holds, and

rightly, I thing, that they first occupied Arachosia

and Drangiana and thence spread eastward to the

valley of the Indus. The Chinese authorities, as he

himself says, are in favour of this view. And

further, I may remark that Sakastana, which

designates modern Sistan, doubtless shows that the

'Sakas first occupied and settled in that province and

that this country appears afterwards to have been

looked up to by the 'Sakas with patriotic feelings,

since, as mentioned above, there is an honorific

mention of Sakastana in the celebrated Mathura Lion

Pillar Capital.(53)

Although I express my full concurrence in

these remarks of

___

(52) N. Chr. 1890, p. 104.

(53) See note 41 supra; similarly Khoras & #65533;n was called

after the Korsan or Kushana tribe, Zabulistan

after the J & #65533;buli tribe of the Ephthalites, and

Sogdiana after the Sughdi tribe. I think these

provinces received the names of the tribes, as

it was in these that they first gained a firm

footing and established themselves permanently

in their conquests southwards.

 

 

p.289

 

Cunningham, I must express my dissent from his view

which distinguishes the family of Maues from that of

Vonones and makes the former rulers of the Punjab,

and the latter, of the country around Kandahar and

Ghazni.(54) According to him, Maues at the head of a

'Saka horde first conquered Sakastana and then

advanced further into the east and occupied the

Punjab, leaving behind him Vonones who afterwards

either rebelled or was himself made the ruler of

Sakastana by Maues who was content with his Indian

dominions. On the death of Maues, Vonones and Azas

disputed each the claim of the other to the throne,

and it was settled by both maintaining their equal

authority. And, further, as the coins of Maues are

found only in the Punjab, and of Azas and Azilises

little beyond Jelalabad, whereas the money of Vonones

and Spalirises is confined to the country around

Kandahar and Ghazni, Cunningham holds that Azas and

Azilises were the successors of Manes. Now, in the

first place, I cannot but feel certain that the

sequence of the reigns of Vonones, Spalirises, Azas

I., Azilises and Azas II. deduced from the legends

of their coins is indisputable. Why then should we

not regard these princes as members of one and the

same dynasty? Again. Cunningham maintains that the

claim to the throne of Maues, contested by Vonones

and Azas, was " adjusted by admitting the equal

authority of Azas. " But we have seen that on coins

which he strikes together with Vonones and

Spalirises, the name of Azas is restricted to the

reverse. This shows that he was tributary to Vonones

and Spalirises. This conclusion is assented to by

Cunningham himself, who says that " politically they

were certainly connected, as Atlas acknowledged the

supremacy of Vonones and afterwards of Spalirises by

placing their names on the obverse on his coins. (55)

It is therefore evident that during the life-time of

Vonones and Spalirises, Azas was their subordinate.

Further, according to Cunningham, Azas succeeded

Maues, but I cannot comprehend how this can be so,

when the legends on his coins distinctly and

unmistakably connect him with Vonones and Spalirises

and show him to be the successor of the latter,

whereas no such connection with Maues is at all

discernible.

We shall now examine the argument often adduced

in favour or the first place in the dynastic list

assigned to Maues. Such numismatists as Wilson, Von

Sallet, Percy Gardner and Cunningham(56)

___

 

(54) N. Chr. 1890, pp. 103 ff.

(55) N. Chr. 1890, p. 107.

(56) Ar. ant. p. 313; Gard. Intro., p. xl.; N. Chr.

1890, p. 110; Ibid.1888, p.242.

 

 

p.290

 

have maintaned that since there are two types of

Maues' coins which are identical with those of

Demetrius and Apollodotus, he was not, much posterior

to these Greek princes and must therefore be regarded

as the earliest prince of the 'Saka dynasty.

Accordingly he has been placed about 70 B. C. by

Gardner and about 100 B. C, by Cunningham. The

question that we have now to consider is: 'Is

identity of type a sure mark of contemporaneity? ' I

believe that when the type of any two kings' coins is

alike or even identical, it does not necessarily

follow that they were contemporary or even nearly

contemporary to each other. If is not unlikely that

the coinage of one of these kings was in circulation

in the time of the other to whom it might have

suggested types for his coinage. And this in fact

appears to be the case from the coins of Maues

himself. For one type of his coins is a close

imitation of a coin of Apollodotus, and another an

exact copy of a coin of Demetrius. And if we availed

ourselves for the moment of the dates assigned by

Gardner(57) to the Creek end the IndoScythian

princes, there would be an interval of ninety years

between Demetrius and Apollodotus and of thirty years

between Apollodotus and Maues. Demetrius is thus

anterior to Maues by one hundred and twenty years.

This chronological difference between the Greek and

the Indo-Scythian king is, in my opinion, much less

than it most probably is. (58) However, even if we

accept it, it can scarcely be reasonably maintained

that Maues was contemporary or even nearly

contemporary with Demetrius. Identity of type is

therefore not a sure proof of contemporaneity, and,

in particular, in the case of Maues we have just seen

that he cannot possibly be contemporaneous with

Demetrius and Apollodotus at the same time, seeing

that they were removed from each other by ninety

years, and from Maues by one hundred and twenty, and

thirty years at least respective!y. The assertion

that Maues was the first 'Saka ruler, entirely based

on the argument of the identity of type, thus falls

to the ground.

Again, the fact that Maues' coins are confined to

the Punjab(59) militates against the supposition that

he was the first 'Saka prince. For one would expect

to find the coins of the first 'Saka prince in

countries to the west and north-west of the Punjab,

and not in the

___

 

(57) Gard. Intro. p, xxxiii.

(58) Prof. Gardner allots an average of ten years

only to every one of the Greek and Scythian

kings. But I think that ordinarily an average of

at least fifteen years should be assigned to

each reign.

(59) N. Chr. 1890, p. 106.

 

 

p.291

 

Punjab only.(60) Therefore it is again supposed that

Maues and his horde came into the Punjab by the

Karakoram pass.(61) But the improbability or even the

impossibility of its being used we have already shown

on the authority of General Cunningham himself.

Besides, the theory itself to support which this

supposition is made, we have shown to be groundless,

as it makes Maues a contemporary of two princes

removed from each other by an interval of ninety

years at least. The plain conclusion, therefore, from

the fact that Meues' coins are confined to the

Punjab, that he was the last of the 'Saka princes

must be accepted. Further, it is worthy of note that

during the reigns of Vonones, Spalirises, Azas and

Azilises, we End powerful viceroys ruling under their

authority over different provinces. But the reign of

Maues is conspicuous by the absence of viceroys, such

as Azas was in the time of Vonones and Spalirises, or

Azilises during the reign of Azas himself. This also

shows the curtailment of the 'Saka power in Maues'

time, and therefore points to his being the last

'Saka ruler. Again, if is morally certain and I think

that unless the contrary is proved, we may hold that

the Mathura date 72 of 'So.d & #65533;sa the Taxila date 78 of

Patika, the Takht-i-Bahi date 103 of the

Indo-Parthian prince Gondophares, the Panjtar date

123 of a Gushana prince (whose name is lost), & c.,

are years of one and the same era.(62) But the year

103 was the 26th year of the reign of Gondophares,

who thus seems to have come to the throne in 78. The

Taxila copper plate charter was issued in the year

78. Maues and Gondophares were therefore

contemporaries. And we know that the 'Saka power

___

 

(60) I have mentioned heretofore that the name

Sakastene shows that the 'Sakas first occupied

and settled in that province, and thence

penetrated eastward into the Punjab. Hence, if

Maues had been the first 'Saka sovereign, his

coins would have been found to the West of the

Punjab; but since they are not, it is highly

improbable that Maues was the earliest of the

'Saka rulers.

(61) Gard. Intro. XL.

(62) Dr. B & #65533;lher was inclined to the same view (Vienna

Ori. Jour. Vol. X.. p. 173). I shall show the

extremely great probability of the correctness

of his view further in the sequel It is

interesting to find that in M. Senart's opinion

the Taxila date of Moga and the Takhti-Bahi date

of Gondophares are links of the same chain and

refer to the 'Saka era (Ind. Ant. XXI., 207). In

my humble opinion, all the dates mentioned

above, including those given by M. Senart, are

years of the 'Saka era. And the numismatic

difficulty in accepting this view, to which he

has adverted, if we hold Kanishke to be the

founder of the 'Saka era, disappears when it is

hold that the era was not; instituted by

Kanishka, and that he flourished a century at

least after Gondophares: as I shall attempt to

show further on.

 

 

p.292

 

was overthrown by Gondophares, whose coins found all

over the Puojab, as well as at Kandahar, Sistan,

Jelalabad and Begram,(63) doubtless prove that his

away was established over all the territories

formerly held by the 'Sakas. Maues is therefore the

last prince of the 'Saka dynasty. According to our

view, Vonones, the earliest, first conquered

Arachosia and Drangiana, and thence pressed his

victories further into the Punjab. And in all these

districts the coins of Vonones' viceroys are found.

We therefore hold that, like almost all invaders,

Vonones entered into the Punjab from the west and not

through Kashmir. From the find-spots of their coins,

Vonones and Spalirises appear to have ruled over

Arachosia, Drangiana, the lower Kabul valley, and the

Western Punjab.(64) But after the death of the atter,

Azas I. seems to have lost many of the Saka

possessions in Afghanistan, his rule being confined

only to the lower Kabul valley and the Punjab, where

his coins have been found in abundance.(65) The

dominions of Azilises and Azas II. were much the same

as those of Azas I. It thus appears that after

Spalirises, the diminution of the extent of the 'Saka

kingdom had set in Afghanistan till the whole was

lost in the reign of Maues, whose sway, as we have

seen, was restricted to the Punjab only. We know that

the Saka dynasty was supplanted by the

Indo-Parthians. When they commenced their inroads and

pressed upon the 'Sakas, the latter had naturally to

leave their possessions in Afghanistan and the west

more and more into the hands of their conquerors and

remain content with their Indian dominions; and

finally the Western Punjab also was wrested from them

by Gondophares.

It has been observed above that it is natural to

suppose the date 78 of the Taxila plate as a year of

the era not started by Moga or Maues, but used in his

time, that this era is in all likelihood the 'Saka

era, and that if we could fix upon the first 'Saka

prince of the imperial dynasty to which Maues

belonged, we should find the origina tor of the 'Saka

era. With this end in view, we have determined the

following order of succession of these 'Saka rulers,

viz., (i) Vonones, (ii) Spalirises, (iii) Azas I.,

(iv) Azilises, (v) Azas II., and (vi) Maues. Vonones

thus appears to be the first prince of the 'Saka

dynasty and

___

 

(63) N. Chr 1890, pp. 122-123; Gard. Intro. XLV.

(64) N. Chr. 1890, pp. 106-107; Gard. Intro. XLI.

Since the coins of Azas, when a viceroy of

Vonones and Spalirises, are found in the Western

Punjab. the latter appear to have had it under

their away.

(65) Ar. Ant., p. 321; N. Chr. 1890, p.110

 

 

p.293

 

hence the founder of the 'Saka era. And, further, if

we assign an average duration of fifteen years to the

reign of each one of these kings, our calculation

gives the year 76 as the initial year of the reign of

Maues, and the year 90 as the last year of that

reign. This result fits excellently;for in the first

place the initial year of his reign, according to our

recokening, is earlier than and hence not

inconsistent with the date 78 of the Taxila plate of

Patika, and, secondly, his reign closes before the

date 103 of the Takht-i-Bah, inscription, when

Gondophares was alive and ruling over the Punjab. For

about thirteen years the dominions of Gondophares And

Manes were conterminous with one another, and shortly

before or after the year 90, Gondophares wrested the

Punjab from the 'Sakas. If this line of reasoning has

any weight, the 'Saka era originates from Vonones.

The coins of Vonones have not yet been obtained, but

those of his viceroys have been found in Arachosia,

Sistan, the lower Kabul valley, And the Western

Punjab. To my mind it appears that the seat of

Vonones' government lay to the west or north-west of

Sistan, and that he subjugated Sistan, Arachosia, and

other districts in the neighbourhood and appointed

viceroys to govern them. Vonones must therefore have

been a powerful sovereign. It has been alleged that

Vonones sounds an Indo-Parthian name. But we have

seen that his successors were Azas, Azilises, and

Maues-which names are unquestionably Indo-Scythian.

We may therefore suppose either that some of the

'Saka kings assumed Indo-Parthian names as they did

Indian, or that, as remarked by,Mr. Rapson,(66) a

strong Parthian element was existent among the 'Sakas

of this period. Be that as it may, if Azas, Azilises,

and Maues were, 'Sakas, their predecessor Vonones

must be of 'Saka origin.

We have thus determined that Vonones was the

founder of the 'Saka era, or, what is the same thing,

we have seen that the Imperial 'Saka supremacy is to

be assigned to the second half of the first and the

first half of the second century alter Christ. And in

order to find out the English equivalent of the

dates in the reigns of Kanishka, Huvishka and

V & #65533;sudeva--which is the principal topic of our

discussion, we have to settle how many years after

the extinction of the 'Saka sovereignty Kanishka and

his soccessors flourished.

I have remarked above that the Mathura date 72 of

'So.d & #65533;sa. the Taxila date 78 of Patika, the

Takht-i-Bahi date 103 of Gondophares,

___

 

(66) Indian Coins, p.8.

 

 

p.294

 

the Panjtar date 123 of a Gushana prince whose name

is lost, & c., are all years of one and the same era.

And, further, since the first two dates, as we have

seen, must be 'Saka years, the other dates also must

be referred to the 'Saka era. Now, if these dates

belong to the same era, the Takht-i-Bahi date 103 is

later than the Taxila date 78, and the Panjtar date

123 later than the Takht-i-Bahi date 103. And this

result is quite in keeping with the generally

accepted fact that the 'Saka rule over North-western

India was overthrown by the Indo-Parthians and the

Indo-Parthians by the Kushanas. Again, it might be

objected that these dates cannot refer to the same

era, as we have them to suppose that after the lapse

of only twenty years the Kushanas succeeded the

Indo-Parthians in the sovereignty over Gandh & #65533;ra and

the Punjab. But it must be borne in mind that the

coins of Gondophares have come from the lower Kabul

valley, the upper and the lower Indus valley, Sistan

and Kandahar, but those of his successors Orthagnes,

Abdgases, Pakores, & c., have been obtained all over

these regions, except the lower Kabul and the upper

Indus valley.(67) These last-mentioned territories

were not therefore after Gondophares in the

possession of his successors, and most therefore have

been seized by the Kushanas. The difference of only

twenty years between the Takht-i-Bahi and Panjtar

dates is thus explained not by the supposition that

the Indo-Parthian power became extinct in that short

period, but by the inference from the find-spots of

coins that the lower Kabul and the upper Indus

valley were lost to the Indo-Parthians soon after the

death of Gondophares and occupied by the Kushanas.

Now, I cannot but think that there are no cogent

reasons to hold that Kanishka was the originator of

any era. Certainly he was not the king who first

established the independence of the Kushana dynasty.

For so far as our knowledge goes, the real founder of

this dynasty was Kujula-Kadphises. Nor was he the

first Kushana sovereign who struck gold coins, if

they are to be supposed as an indication of the

extension of power and prosperity. For the gold

coinage was first issued by his predecessor

Wema-Kadphises. Nor does he appear to be a great

conqueror who extended the dominions inherited by

him. The coins of his predecessor were collected

along the Kabul valley and were found all over the

Punjab and the Northwestern provinces as far eastward

as Gorakhpur and Ghazipur.(68)

___

 

(67) Gard. Intro. xlv.; N. Chr. 1890, pp. 122-123.

(68) N. Chr. 1889, p. 277; Ar. Ant. pp. 353 and.358.

It deserves to be noticed that the coins of

Wema-Kadphises have not been found in abundance

only at

 

 

p.295

 

And Kanishka, to judge from the find-spots of his

coins, does not seem to have added to these vast

dominions. Perhaps, it may be argued that from the

R & #65533;jatarangint we learn that Kanishka and his

successors ruled over Kashmir, whereas we have no

evidence to hold that Wema-Kadphises ever possessed

that province. But I think that since Kanishka and

his successors are mentioned in the R & #65533;jatara^ngi.n?

only as the founders of new cities, the omission of

the name of Wema-Kadphises may be explained away by

the fact that he did not found any new town. Even

granting that Kanishka first subjugated Kashmir, the

mere conquest of such a small and not an important

province as Kashmir would not entitle him to be

called a great conqueror. It is therefore

inconceivable why Ranishka should be considered as

the originator of any era.(69) The principal thing

that has immortalized his name is his conversion to

Buddhism and the assembly of Buddhist monks convened

under his patronage, But I cannot understand how this

fact can be sufficient to make him the founder of an

era. I am therefore strongly inclined to hold with

Cunningham(70) that the dates of the inscriptions of

Kanishka, Huvishka and Vasudeva are abbreviated by

the omission of hundreds. The questions that now

arise are: how many hundreds have been omitted and to

what era are the full dates to be referred?

Four kings at the most appear to hare reigned

before Kanishka, viz. Kujula-Kadphises,

Kujula-Kara-Kadphises, the Nameless King and

Wema-Kadphises. With the question whether or not the

Nameless King was a Kushana prince we are not

concerned. For anyhow

___

 

a few specific places or scattered sparsely over

many pieces, but that they have been obtained in

plenty and over almost the whole of the Kabul

valley, the Punjab and the North-western

provinces as far as Gorakhpur and Ghazipur. The

inference from the find-spots of his coins, as

regards the extent of his dominions, is almost

certain, and not overshadowed by doubt as in

most eases where this form of argument is

utilised.

(69) Gardner thinks that the 'Saka era was perhaps

started by Kadphises II., i.e. Wema-Kadphises,

since he " begins the issue of Indo-Scythian

gold coins: and Kanerki's earliest date is the

year 9 " (Gard. Intro li., note *). Since the

above was written by Gardner, an inscription has

been discovered which is dated in the year 5 in

the reign of Kanishka (Ep Ind. I., 381).

Conceding however that the year 9 is the

earliest date of Kanishka, it is next to

impossible that Wema-Kadphises should have

reigned only for eight years, as his coins have

been collected in vast numbers over a very wide

region.

(70) Book of Indian Eras, p. 41; N. Chr. 1892, pp.

44-45; but I do not agree with him in referring

the dates of Kanishka and his successors to the

Seleukidan era, as will be noticed further on.

 

 

p.296

 

we have to take the period of his reign into

consideration. That he reigned after Kujula-Kadphises

and before Kanishka and over the Kushana dominions

can easily be shown. The find-spots of his coins

(71) show that the extent of his kingdom was almost

the same as that of Wema-Kadphises-which means that

he ruled over the Kushana territories. A coin has

been noticed by Cunningham(72) which bears on the

reverse the faces of the Nameless King and

Wema-Kadphises with their peculiar symbols in front

of them. On his copper coins Wema-Kadphises assumes

the titles that are found on the coinage of the

Nameless King only. Various other similarities have

been mentioned by Cunningham, which indubitably

indicate that he was not far removed in time from

Wema-Kadphises, and that for some time and over some

region at least, as can be inferred from that

peculiar coin, they were contemporaries reigning

together. We must not however suppose that for long

they were ruling together over the same territories

or were intimately connected with each other. For

the coins of the Nameless King are mostly of copper

and rarely of silver, while those of Wema-Kadphises

are of copper and gold, and not a single specimen of

silver has hitherto been discovered. The Nameless

King therefore ruled over the Kushana territories

after Kujula-Kadhises and before Kanishka, and had an

altogether separate reign, at any rate for a long

time.(73) Now, each one of these kings seems to have

had a long reign as appears from the vast number of

coins found.(74) Assuming that the Kushana ruler,

whose name is lost in the Panjtar inscription, is

Kujula-Kadphises, and that he began to reign

independently in 120, i.e. three years before 123,

the date of the inscription, an average period of

twenty years to each

___

 

(71) Ar. Ant., p. 332; N. Chr. 1890, p. 115;

Ibid.1892, p. 72.

(72) N. Chr. 1892, p. 56.

(73) In my opinion, Wema-Kadphises came after the

placed bettween Wema-Kadphises and Kanishka, we

should find his gold coins, but the Nameless

King does not appear to have Issued gold

coinage.

(74) This, however, cannot be said of

kujula-kara-Kadphises. In fact, the general

current of opinion amongst numismatists is to

regard the coins of this prince as different

types of the coinage of Kujula-Kadphises (Rapson

: Indian Coins, p. 17), so that before Kanishka

there lived only three princes, viz.

Kujula-Kadphises, the Nameless King, and

Wema-Kadphises. We have thus three reigns

covering a period of eighty years, or an average

period of 262/3 years for each one of the three

princes--a period which agrees with the

abundance of their coins better than the period

of twenty years which we have assigned to each.

 

 

p.297

 

one of these kings brings Wema-Kadphises' reign to a

close in 800. And I have stated above that the

Panjtar date is in all likelihood a 'Saka year.

Wema-Kadphises therefore ceased to reign about 200

Sake, i.e. 218 A. D. The dates of the inscriptions

of Kanishka, Huvishka, and V & #65533;sudeva are therefore

recorded with two hundreds omitted, and refer to the

'Saka era.

According to this view, the following will be the

dates of the Kushana princes Kanishka, Huviahka, and

V & #65533;sudeva:-

For Karnishka, we have inscriptions with tile

gears 5-28, i. e.

[20]5-[2]28 'S. E., i. e. 283-306 A. D.

For Huvishka, we have inscriptions with the

years 29-60 i, e.

[2]29--[2]60'S. E., i. e. 307-338 A. D.

For V & #65533;sudeva, we have inscriptions with the

years 74-98, i, e.

[2]74--[2]98 'S. E., i. e. 352-376 A. D.

We have thus come to the conclusion that the

dates in the reigns of Kanishka, Huvishka, and

V & #65533;sudeva are to be explained by the omission of two

hundreds of the 'Saka era. This result agrees with

the Mathura date 29 (9?) of a king whose titles are

given but whose name is not specified. For, as Dr.

B & #65533;hler has remarked, the type of characters of the

Mathura inscription, which bears this date, points to

the time of one of these three princes,(75) and I may

add that the titles mentioned, especially the

expression R & #65533;j & #65533;tir & #65533;ja, are those which are peculiar

to

these Kushana kings. If the date 29 (9?) of this

Mathura incription thus in all likelihood belongs to

the time of these princes, our view that in other

Kushana documents the dates are recorded by leaving

out two hundreds is confirmed. The date 29 (9?) must

thus belong to the reign of V & #65533;sudeva.

It will be seen that by holding that Vonones was

the founder of the 'Saka era, and that the dates of

Kanishka and his successors are 'Saka years

abbreviated by the omission of two hundreds, we have

placed these Indo-Scythian princes much later than

almost all antiquarians have done. I shall therefore

now proceed to show that the periods which we have

assigned to them alone are consistent with

___

 

(75) Vienna Ori. Jour. X., 172-173. Dr. B & #65533;hler thinks

that this fact shows either that two eras were

used in the time of Kanishka, Huvishka, and

V & #65533;sudeva, or that the dates of their

inscriptions are given with two hundreds

omitted. The former alternative appears to me to

be improbable, for if two eras had really been

prevalent at the same time, of certainly the

numerous records of the Kushana period hitherto

discovered, we should have found some at least

dated according to that era.

 

 

p.298

 

what we know as certain about Northern India during

the early centuries of the Christian era. If we

suppose with Fergusson and Prof. Oldenberg that

Kanishka originated the 'Saka era i.e. that the dates

of Kanishka and his successors, as they stand, refer

to the 'Saka era, or if we hold with Cunningham that

these dates are years of the Seleukidan era with 400

omitted, the latest date 98 of V & #65533;sudeva corresponds

to 176 or 186 A. D. This gives us a blank of at least

132 years between the latest Kushana date and the

initial year of the Gupta era, to fill up which

researches hitherto made do not furnish us with the

names of any princes or dynasties. It is no doubt

maintained by some antiquarians that what are called

the later Great Kusbanas occupy this long period. But

for howsoever long a period the later Great Kushanas

may have flourished after V & #65533;sudeva, this much is

incontrovertible that the Kushana power remained

unabated till the time of V & #65533;sudeva, but appears to

have declined after his death. For there is a great

lack of variety in the type of the Kushana coins

after V & #65533;sndeva, (76) and the Greek legends used

thereon are corrupt and seem to have been intended as

mere ornamenter borders. Again, no inscription of the

time of any of these later Great Kushanas has yet

been discovered; whereas those of Kanishka, Huvishka,

and V & #65533;sudeva have been found in numbers; and since

all these numerous inscriptions take us only as far

as the year 98, it is all but certain that not long

after this date the Kushanas lost their supremacy.

Further, the coinage of the later Great Kushanas

appears to be restricted to the Kabul valley and the

Punjab only, and is not found over the North-Western

Provinces and Central India, where also the coins of

Wema-kadphises, Kanishka, Huvishka, and V & #65533;sudeva are

abundant. This shows that after V & #65533;sudeva the Kushana

rule over the North-Western Provinces and Central

India was overthrown. So that we may safely conclude

that after the death of V & #65533;sudeva the Kushanas ceased

to be supreme rulers, and their sway was confined to

a much smaller region. There is not the slightest

indication whatever of any royal dytnasty intervening

between the death of V & #65533;sudeva and the rise of the

Guptas and supplanting the Kushana sovereignty. But

if our theory is accepted, Kanishka, Huvishka and

V & #65533;sudeva are brought sufficiently close to the

Guptas, the blank of 132 years completely disappears,

and the Guptas obviously appear to have brought about

the downfall of the Kushanas, as is generally

accepted. Nay, we can even determine

___

 

(76) N. Chr. 1893, pp. 115-116; Rapson: Indias Coins,

p.18, 74; Jour. Ben.. Asiatic Society, LXIII.,

pp. 179-181.

 

 

p.299

 

which Gupta prince in all probability conquered and

reduced the Kushanas. For the date 98 of V & #65533;sudeva,

according to our mode of understanding it, is

equivalent to 298 'Saka, i.e. 376 A.D. And certainly

about this time the Guptas had secured independence

and were fast rising in power, as will be seen from

the Allahabad pillar inscription recording

expeditions of conquest of Samudragupta. But

Samudragupta does not appear to have subdued the

Kusheanas(77) In his inscription the expression

Daivaputra Sh & #65533;hi Sh & #65533;hunush & #65533;hi(78) occurs, and

the

language there used,when divested of its rhetorical

___

 

(77) When I say that Samudragupta did not subdue the

Kushanas, I do not mean to hold that he never

came in conflict with them. The reign of

Samudragupta marks the first blow dealt to the

Kushanas, as the eastern-most portion of the

North-Western Provinces, which was undoubtedly

once held and possessd by the Kushanas, appears

to be included in his dominions. Though he

perhaps acquired a victory or two over the

Kushanas, he did not entirely subjugate them,

and they seem to have then entered into a

friendly alliance with Samudragupta and are

spoken of as Sh & #65533;hi Sh & #65533;h & #65533;vush & #65533;hi, i. e.

M & #65533;har & #65533;ja

R & #65533;j & #65533;tir & #65533;ja, in his inscription. But it

was

Chandragupta II, who succeesfully attacked, and

overwhelmed the Kushanas, as will be shown in

the text further.

 

(78) I take this to be one single compound title

designating the member of the imperial Kushana

dynasty, contemporaneous with Samudragupta, when

the Allahabad pillar inscription was incised.

Mr, Smith, like Dr. Fleet, has split up this

expression into three different titles, denoting

three different princes But I do not understand

how the word Shahi or Sh & #65533;h & #65533;nush & #65533;hi by itself

can

be supposed to have been used to designate

particular princes, as the words are not

certainly tribal names, at any rate were no so

at that time, but are ordinary title

corresponding to Mah & #65533;r & #65533;ja or

R & #65533;j & #65533;tir & #65533;ja. Sh & #65533;hi

and Sh & #65533;h & #65533;nush & #65533;hi cannot thus be

either

dynastic or proper name. The last evidently

corresponds as stated in the text to the

expression Shaonano Shao on the coins of the

three Kushana princes, and when the distinctive

appellation Devaputra is read before the titles,

the doubt is almost wholly cleared and the

expression must undoubtedly be taken to refer to

the Kushanas, for we know that Devaputra was a

specific name by which the Kushanas were known.

I therefore take the whole expression Daivaputra

Sh & #65533;hi sh & #65533;h & #65533;nush & #65533;hi as equivalent to

Mah & #65533;r & #65533;ja

R & #65533;j & #65533;tir & #65533;ja Devaputra and as alluding to

one

prince of the imperial Kushana family. By the

bye, it may be mentioned that Mr. smith, taking

each one of the words of this compound to be a

separate name denoting a distinct prince,

identifies Sh & #65533;hi with some prince of the Kid & #65533;ra,

i.e. the Little Kushana dynasty reigning about

Kandahar. But Kid & #65533;ra, the founder of this

dynasty. who has been identified with Kitolo of

the Chinese writers, is supposed to have

conquered Gandh & #65533;ra about 428 A. D. and to have

reigned previously to this date to the north of

Caucasus until the time of the inroads of the

H?nas (J. R. A. S. 1897, pp. 905-907; N. Chr.

1893, pp. 184-185; Jour. Beng. Asia. Socie.

LXIII., 183). How therefore any prince of the

Kid & #65533;ra dynasty can be a contemporary of

Samudragupta, I cannot imagine.

 

 

p.300

 

hyperbole, clearly implies that the Kushanas had

entered into a friendly alliance with Samudragupta

and that they were practically independent. It may

also be observed that the title Sh & #65533;h & #65533;nush & #65533;hi,

which

is identical with Shaonano Shao, occurring in the

legends of the Kushana coins, and which is equivalent

to the Sanskrit epithet R & #65533;j & #65533;dhir & #65533;ja or the

Greek

expression Basileus Basileon, indicates that the

prince who assumed it was a paramount sovereign, and

that his supreme power was still unshaken, at any

rate to any serious extent. Samudragupta was

succeeded by his son Chandragupta II., who was the

greatest and most powerful Gupta Prince. And it is he

who seems to have eclipsed the glory of the Kushanas.

For his coins have been found in R & #65533;mnagar in the

Bareili district, Soron in the Et? district, Sunit

near Ludi & #65533;na, Panipat and Alwar.(79) An inscription

referring itself to his reign has also been

discovered at Mathura.(80) But neither any coins nor

any inscription of the reign of Samudragupta has been

found in those regions. It is therefore almost

certain that Chandragupta II.attacked and overwhelmed

the Kushanas and brought the whole of the

North-Western Provinces at least under his rule. The

earliest known date of Chandragupta II. is 82 G. E.,

i.e. 400 A. D. In all probability he succeeded to the

throne long before. The latest ascertained date of

V & #65533;sudeva is 98, i.e 298; according to our theory,

corresponding to 376 A. D. It was between 376 A. D.

and 400 A. D. therefore that V & #65533;sudeva was vanquished

by Chandragupta. In all likelihood the event must

have taken place soon after 298 S. E. or 376 A. D.;

for in the inscription bearing that date V & #65533;sudeva is

called only a R & #65533;jan and the imperial titles are

omitted. Already therefore he had been reduced to a

subordinate position before 376 A. D.

We have thus made the Guptas the immediate

successors of the Kushanas in the supremacy over the

North-Western Provinces and Eastern Malwa. The only

conceivable objection of any force that may be urged

against this view is that paleographic evidence does

not support it. But, in my opinion, paleographic

evidence, far from contradicting this view,

strengthens it. Dr. B & #65533;hler has noticed that ka of the

Kushana inscriptions has occasionally the Gupta form,

and that instances of sa. with its left limb turned

into a loop such as is to be met with in the

Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta, are not

___

 

(79) J. R. A. S. (N. S.) 1889, P. 48; Ibid. 1893, p.

104.

(80) Cor. Ins. Ind. III., pp. 25-28.

 

 

p.301

 

wanting.(81) The letters ra and .na engraved in the

well-known Mathura inscription of Chandragupta II.

and Kumar & #65533;gupta I.(82) are also to be found in those

of the Kushana period. But there may appear to be

some difference regarding the character ma. But as

Cunningham has assured us,(83) the so-called Gupta

form of ma occurs in a Kushana inscription dated 98.

The later form thus appears to have come into vogue

about the close of the Kushana supremacy. He has also

observed that the older form of ma which was almost

invariably used in the time of the Kushanas was not

unknown in the north during the reign of

Samudragupta, and I may add, of Chandragupta II., as

will be seen from the way in which the letter is

incised in the words 'Par & #65533;krama' and 'Vikram & #65533;ditya'

in the legends of their coins respectively. It is

thus plain that in the time of these Gupta princes at

any rate, both the forms of ma were prevalent and the

new form came to be used a little before the time of

the overthrow of the Kushana power by Chandragupta

II. Nor call it be said that in the Gupta period

there is any marked permanent change in the form of

the letter na; for though the loop form of that

period may be seen in the word ' Krit & #65533;nta'(84) in the

Mathurainscription of Chandragupta II., the usual

form of it of the Kushana period is to be seen in the

words' utpannasya' and 'tatparig.rih & #65533;tena.' Further

the loop-form is not peculiar to the Gupta period,

since it may be noticed in the Kushana

inscriptions(85) also and was not the only form used

even after the extinction of the Gupta sovereignty as

both occur in an inscription at Mathura dated 230 G.

E. (86) The only notable difference that appears to

me is with respect to the medial ? Excepting this,

there are no characters in the Gupta inscriptions at

Mathura which are not to be found in the epigraphical

records of the time of the Kushanas. And no less an

authority on paleography than Dr. B & #65533;hler bears

testimony to this fact. In his work 'Indische

Paleographie'(87) he says: " 811 these peculiarities

(of the Kushana period) as well the advanced forms of

the medial vowel ?in r? u in ku and in stu and o

in to appear in the northern alphabets of the

following period, that of the Gupta inscriptions and

that of the Bower MS. either without change or are

the prototypes of the forms there appearing. The

literary alphabets in use at Mathura ill the first

and

___

 

(81) Ep. Ind. I,, 372-73.

(82) Ibid. II., 210, NO. 39.

(83) Arch. Sur. Reports III., 37-38.

(84) Vide the preceding note.

(85) Vide in the plates accompanying B & #65533;hler's

Indische Paleographie, tafel III., 26--IV.

(86) Cor. Ins, Ind. III. pl. xl. D.

(87) Indischen Paleographie, p. 41.

 

 

p.302

 

second centuries after Christ were perhaps very

nearly or altogether alike to the later ones, and the

mixing up of the old forms is to be attributed only

to the imitation of older votive inscriptions. " As

regards the fact that the type of characters of the

Gupta period at Mathura almost fully agrees with that

of the Kushana, we are quite at one with Dr. B & #65533;hler.

But he ascribes this agreement of the form of the

letters to an attempt at imitating the older votive

inscriptions, because he sticks to the cherished

belief that Kanishka lived in the first century A. D.

and probably even earlier.(88) Any conscious attempt

at imitating the letters of the older inscriptions is

in itself improbable and on oar view of the matter

which we have developed so far it is quite

unnecessary to make any such supposition, for we hold

that Kanishka, Huvishka and V & #65533;sudeva immediately

preceded the Guptas and that the last prince at any

rate was a contemporary of Chandragupta II. The close

resemblance of alphabets is thus to be accounted for

by the fact that the Kushana and the Gupta

inscriptions at Mathura belong to almost the same

period; and thus the paleographic evidence far from

contradicting our view affords a strong confirmation

thereof.

___

 

(88) Ind. Ant. XXVII, p.49, note 4.

 

 

 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-JRAS/bhandar.htm