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没ishka, 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ヌya
Muni was installed in the Ro'sikavihビa 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計aka, of
the mother of J計aka 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ペe'. 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 'ビogyadakshi.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没ishka, with whose name is coupled the
title of Mahビニa only, without the usual additional
title Rニフirニa. 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ヌya 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ネ 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ピudeva 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ピudeva, since he is the latest of the
princes whose coins are found there, represent the
doctrine of an advanced Mahペハa 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ピudeva 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ネ 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 腆KA
KOIIANOY. Since
_____________________________________________________
(4) In the N. Chr. (Numismatic Chronicle) for 1889,
pp 274-275 Cunningham after referring the dates of
Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vピudeva 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 腆KA. 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 腆N 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 腆 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ニatara^ngi.n?11)
speaks of Kanishka as sprung from the Turushka race
which corresponds to the modern Turks. Again, Al
B罫uni(12) tells us a legend which makes Kanika,
i.e. Kanishka, a descendant of the Turk family called
Shドiya, founded by Barhatak系, 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罫uni 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ドishドハushahi-'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罫uni 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ペi 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フaskar.ni, viz.,
'Saka-Yavana-Pahlavanish謀ana seems to support
it. Prof. Oldenberg, however (Ind. Ant. X, p.
233, note 65), doubts the correctness of the
reading ''Sakasa' before 'Ushavadフasa' 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フa. It is gratifying to see that both
B”ler and Bhagwanlal Indraji take ''Sakasa' as
a word by itself, connect it with 'Ushavadフasa
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ヌha 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ハa
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”ler 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”ler 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ペi was therefore not much prior to 150 A. D.
The latest date of Nahapハa is 46, known from the
Junnar inscription of his minister Ayama. Not long
after this date, Gotam継utra 'Sフakar.ni exterminated
the Kshaharフa dynasty, to which Nahapハa belonged.
So that shortly after 124 A. D., supposing the date
46 to be a 'Saka year, Pu.lumペi became king. This
brings Pu.lumペi 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ハa must be supposed to be prior to
'So.dピa. Three inscriptions which refer themselves to
the reign of 'So.dピa 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ハa, 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フa'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”ler 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”ler
himself (Ep. Ind. IV., 55, and note 2). The date
of an inscription of Vピudeva 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継utra Yaj~na 'Sr?'Sフarkar.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フakar.ni. The developed form of 'bha' of the
time of 'So.dピa is noticeable in these inscriptions
of Ya~nja 'Sr? 'Sフakar.ni and Rudradノan. 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ピa was later than
Nahapハa, 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ピa was earlier than Kanishka; and we have just
seen that Nahapハa was anterior to 'Sodピa. A
fortiori, Nahapハa was prior to Kanishka. But as the
inscriptions of the time of Nahapハa 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ハa, 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ハa 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ビa, 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ビ'svika
summoned to draw up the Vibhピh? '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ピudeva
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ハa, 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ハa thus
flourished about the middle of the first century B.
C. He places Gotam継utra 'Sフakar.ni about 78 A. D.,
and the Khakharatas, who are said in Nasik
Inscription No. 18 to have been exterminated by
Gotam継utra 'Sフa-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ペi 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ペi and Jayadノan the sons of
Gotam継utra 'Sフakar.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ペi 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”ler
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フas, the descendants of Nahapハa
reigned upwards of a century before they were
uprooted by Gotam継utra Sフakar.ni but almost all
scholars are now agreed on the point,(29) that there
was no great interval between Nahapハa and
'Sフakarni, since no Khakharフa prince places himself
between them in any inscriptions in Western India and
since a grant is made by 'Sフakarni 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フa who it is
alleged can be no other than Usabhadフa of the Karli
and Ushavadフa of the Nasik inscription, the
well-known son-in-law of Nahapハa. 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ハa, followed a war
with Gotam継utra 'Satakar.ni who destroyed the
Khakharフa 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ハa, so that the victory of
'Sフakarni occurred before the 18th year of his
reign, Let us suppose that the event came off in the
15th regnal year of Gotam継utra 'Satakar.ni. He was
succeeded to the throne by his son Pu.lumayi. Since
Gotam継utra Sフakar.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ハa employed, may be placed the
accession of Pa.lumayi who was contemporary with
Chash.tana. Now, if the dates of Nahapハa are to be
reckoned from the time of Maues as Cunningham tells
us, Pulumペi 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ハa are referred to the 'Saka era, Pulumペi
came to the throne about 135 A.D. and this brings
him sufficiently close to the time of Ptolemy, But if
Nahapハa 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”ler
(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”ler in regard to the order
of succession of the Andhrabhritya kings
determined by him, as well as with respect to
his opinion that Gotam継utra 'Sフaskar.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ノan'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ノan, 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ノan 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ノan'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ノaghsada 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ノaghsada's coins points to his
having reigned not more than ten years, so that we
get 92 as the approximate year when Rudradノan ceased
to reign. Rudradノan 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ノan 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ノan, 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ハa and marks
his conquest of Gujarat and
_____________________________________________________
(31) History of Gujarat (Bom Gazet. Vol. I, Pt. I.)
pp. 33-34.
(32) Dノaghsada is supposed by Pondit Bhagwanlal to
have been suncceeded by his son J計ヅaman. But
Mr. Rapson has shown that Dノaghsada 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ハa 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ハa 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ハa 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ハa's title Kshatrapa makes it
highly probable that he was a dependent prince.
Secondly, as Dr. B”ler 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ハa was not an independent ruler. Precisely the
same line of reasoning holds good in the case of
Chash.tana.(35) Neither Nahapハa 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ハa 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ハa on his coins, young and
old, the improbability of it is evident, as the coins
of Nahapハa 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ヌshatrapa by these
Western Satraps at any rate is not without
significance. Those who were Kshatrapas were
subordinate to the Mahヌshatrapas or some
foreign kings who conquered them. Those who are
styled Mahヌshagtrapas were independent and owed
fealty to none. Nahapハa on his coins and in his
son-in-law Ushavadフa'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ヌshatrapa is first
conjoined to his name. This shown that before
the year 46 Nahapハa was only a Kshatrapa and
occupied a subordinate position. Now, if the
dates of Nahapハa 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ハa 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ノan, father of Rudradノan,
because of the rareness of his coins, it is
inexplicable why he should regard Nahapハa 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ハa, it would have died with
his death or with that of his successor, whosoever
the Khakharフa prince may be whom Gotam継utra
'Sフakarni vanquished. There is no reason why the
princes of Chash.tana's family should have dated
their coins and inscriptions in Nahapハa's era,
because, first, they did not belong, like the latter,
to the Khakharフa race, of which, Nasik inscription
No. 18 informs us, Gotam継utra 'Sフakarni left no
remnant; secondly, Nahapハa's dynasty was by no means
politically superior to Chash.tana's; and, thirdly,
Nahapハa'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ハa 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ハa,
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ハa 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ハa'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ツhbatrava Kusula? Patika. They were all
engraved in the time of Rニula or Rニubula and his
son 'Su.d?sa or 'So.dピa(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ニubula and Liaka on
the one hand, and 'So.dピa 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ピa.(40) This year 72 of the time of 'So.dピa
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ハa's latest date is 46, which is therefore a
'Saka year. 'So.dピa's date is 72. I have indicated
above that 'So.dピa was undoubtedly posterior to
Nahapハa, but that they were not far removed in time
from one another, So that the date 72 of 'So.dピa in
all likelihood belongs to the 'Saka era equally with
the date 46 of Nahapハa, especially as, like the
latter, the former was a Kshatrapa and a 'Saka.(41)
And, further, Patika was a contemporary of 'So.dピa.
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”ler 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ハa,
i.e., the land of the 'Sakas, and corresponds to
the Sakastene of Isidorus, the Sejistハ of the
early Muhammadan writers, and the Sistハ 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ピa 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ビニa-bhrフ? (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ピa'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ビdiッlrフ? Who this mahビニa 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ビニa bhrフa. 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ハ was called
after the Korsan or Kushana tribe, Zabulistan
after the Jッuli 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ピa 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〕her 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ピudeva--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ピa. 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ビa 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ニatarangint 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ニatara^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ピudeva 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ピudeva:-
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ピudeva, 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ピudeva 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防ler 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ニフirニa, 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ピudeva.
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”ler thinks
that this fact shows either that two eras were
used in the time of Kanishka, Huvishka, and
Vピudeva, 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ピudeva 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ピudeva, this much is
incontrovertible that the Kushana power remained
unabated till the time of Vピudeva, 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ピndeva, (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ピudeva 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ピudeva are
abundant. This shows that after Vピudeva 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ピudeva 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ピudeva and the rise of the
Guptas and supplanting the Kushana sovereignty. But
if our theory is accepted, Kanishka, Huvishka and
Vピudeva 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ピudeva,
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ドi Shドunushドi(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ドi Shドプushドi, i. e. Mドarニa
Rニフirニa, 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ドハushドi 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ビニa or Rニフirニa. Shドi
and Shドハushドi 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ドi shドハushドi as equivalent to Mahビニa
Rニフirニa 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ドi with some prince of the Kidビa,
i.e. the Little Kushana dynasty reigning about
Kandahar. But Kidビa, the founder of this
dynasty. who has been identified with Kitolo of
the Chinese writers, is supposed to have
conquered Gandhビa 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ビa 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ドハushドi, which
is identical with Shaonano Shao, occurring in the
legends of the Kushana coins, and which is equivalent
to the Sanskrit epithet Rニヅhirニa 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ノnagar in the
Bareili district, Soron in the Et? district, Sunit
near Ludiハa, 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ピudeva 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ピudeva 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ピudeva is
called only a Rニan 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”ler 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トupta 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ヌrama' and 'Vikramヅitya'
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ハta'(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荊ena.' 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”ler 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”ler'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”ler.
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ピudeva 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.