________________
THE ARA INSCRIPTION OF KANISHKA II: THE YEAR 41.
133
akshara is not, he says, on a line with the others and is small. Its upper part is a little damaged. The letters sa and ra can be read on the stone, but have not come out in the impressions. I may add that some photographs which I owe to the kindness of Mr. Ilargreaves corroborate Mr. Gupte's statement.
Dr. Fleet has drawn attention to the fact that after kaïsarasa there is space for two more syllables. He says, “ Lines 2 to 5 all end exactly one below the other. We have no reason for thinking that the writer of the record would not run out line 1 to just the same measure. We can also see distinct indications that the writer did, in fact, pat in two more syllables here, and so did make all the lines of equal length." I have asked Mr. Hargreaves to pay especial attention to this point, and he declares positively that, after a careful examination of the stone, be can find no traces of any letter after the sa. Mr. Gupte is of the same opinion and adds : “The estampages lead us astray owing to the roughness of the stone. Something looks like ma, and then comes a line which at first sight may be mistaken for a damaged ta or ra. Certainly there is sufficient room for two letters. But they were not cat, perhaps owing to the roughness of the material. After careful inspection the delusion about the letters vanishes. The supposed ma of the estampages looks too small and is much above the ordinary level of the line, and, if we examine the stone itself, we feel sure that it cannot be a letter. The ruggedness of the stone itself is responsible for the deception." It seems to me that we must accept this definite statement, and we have to admit that the title każsara was indeed used by Kanishka II. Nor can there be any doubt that we have here the imperial title of the Roman emperors.
In 1. 2 the reading sambatsaraē is certain. As pointed out by Professor Lüders, we similarly find samvatsaraye in the Patika inscription and samvatsaraye in the Mababan inscription. Dr. Thomas has further found sambatsarue in the Takht-i-Babi inscription, and also in the Paja recordwe must read saņvatsare, and the Şae Vihar inscription evidently has savatsare. We find the same t& in this word in the Kharoshthi records No. XV 155 (samvatsara 20 1 mahanuara maharaya Jitroga(?) Mayiri deva putrasa mase 2 divase 10 41 ita chhunaimi), XV 166 (saivatfare 101 mahanuava maharaya Jitrogha[?] Maäri deva putrasa mase 2 divase 4 4 isa chhunanmı) and XV 2 (samvatsar[*] 10 mahanuhava maharaya Jitrogha(?) Vashmana devaputrasa mase 4 1 1 divise 10 isa chh[u]nanmi) from Niya.. I think the combination té represents an unsuccessful attempt at writing the word correctly. The pronunciation was no doubt chh. The b in the Takht-i-Babi and Ara inscriptions agrees with the phonetic treatment of such compounds in the Kharðshtb1 manuscript of the Dhammapada.
The reading of the date ekachaparisae sa 20 20 1 Jethasa masasa di 20 40 1 ise divasachhunami is according to Mr. Gupte almost certain. Only he thinks that the final vowel of ekachaparisae is i and not e, and I follow him in reading so.
I have already remarked that I read the last wurd of 1. 3 khade and not khane. Compare kuro khadao in the Shakardarra and kue karite in the Paja icscription. In the Zeda inscription I would likewigo read khade kue muradasa marjhakasa Kanishkasa rajami. The forms with e I think are nominatives.
The second word of 1. 4 was read Dashaverana by Professor Lüders. Mr. Gupte says the reading is very uncertain, especially the first letter. It seems to me, however, that the da is almost certain. The second akshara is probably sha, but might also be na. The third cannot, I think, he ve. I think I can distinctly read fa, and in one of the photographs there is a clear o-mātrå at the bottom, as will be seen from the reproduction P of the akshara on the margin. The fourth akshara may be te or re, and I think te is more likely than re, because the lower perpendioular is slightly curved ; compare the
1 He seems to have overlooked the damaged final akahara of 1. 3 and perhaps an akahara at the end of 1. 4. • JR48., 1913, p. 636.
. Ind. Ant., 1908, p. 65. • Cf. Stein, Ancient Khotan, Vol. II, Pl. XCIV, XCV, CIV.
Cf. Festschrift Windisch, p. 91. • Cf. Sitruusberichte, 1916, p. 806,
