________________
No. 20.]
TAXIL A INSCRIPTION OF THE YEAR 136.
289
and here, again, I think Dr. Fleet may be correct in identifying the latter with Vima-Kadphises. On the other hand, it is also possible that Kajula-Kadphiscs may be meant. The monogram on the scroll is characteristio of coins of Vima-Kadphises, but is also found on coins of his predecessor. Again, the title maharajasa rajatirajasa also suggests Vima-Kadphises ; indecd, it was stated by several speakers during the discussion on the date of Kanishka that Kujala-Kadphises was only & petty local chief (yavuga jabgou), neveria king of kings, like his successor. But this assertion is erroneons. On some of his coins Kajula-Kadphises styles bimself maharaja rajadiraja, and, according to Cunningham, deva putra also. That he raled, moreover, at Taxila, and consequently over the north-west of the Panjab and Frontier generally, is abundantly clear from his coins, which are found there in larger numbers than those of any other king except Azes I and Azes II. Other considerations, too, favour the identification with Kujala-, rather than Vima. Kadphises. For, in the first place, it would be natural for the first emperor of the dynasty to be styled 'the Kushan emperor' without any farther appellation, while it would be equally natural for his successors to be distinguished from him by the addition of their individual names. Secondly, the stratification of coins at Taxila shows that Kujula-Kadphises succeeded the Pahlava kinga there, and consequently he can hardly have conquered the country before circa A.D. 50; and, inasmuch as his coins betoken a fairly long reign there, and he is known from other sources to have lived to a great age, he may well have been ruling in the 122nd and 136th years of the era of Azes, i.e., approximately, in A.D. 65 and 79."
Dr. Thomas seems inclined to asoribe the Taxila record to the reign of Vima-Kadphines. The era is, he maintains, the same as in the Takht-i-Bahi and Panjtár records and probably an old Saka era, which was continued by the first Kushana rulers, at least as late as the years 122 and 136. He goes on to remark: "If Gondophernes died about A.D. 50 after forty years of rule, the year 136 would correspond to A.D.50 +33+14=circa A.D. 70, which approximates to A.D. 78, the beginning of the so-oalled Saka era. And A.Dk 78-twenty-eight years after Gondophernos-will be a very suitable date for the death of Vima-Kadphises, who succeeded an octogenarian probably soon after the death of Gondophernes. This would fit the commencement of Kanishka's reign . . in A.D. 78. We may urge further (1) that the era of the Saksa, having been actually employed by the early Kushans, can have been overthrown only by the definite institution of a new era, which will naturally be the known era of Kanishka; (2) that the so-called Saka era must have owed its institution to the intentional abolition of a real Saka era, that is, to the new epoch of Kanishka. On the other hand, if 136+ = A.D. 78, the commencement of the era is not B.C. 58, but a few years earlier. If, however, the + = 0, we arrive actually at B.C. 58. Although the era which we know as the Mälava and Vikrama era is dated, as I have endeavoured to show above (pp. 413-14), from the institution of non-kingly (oligarchical) role in Ujjain, it is quite conceivable that it was a consequence of the foundation of the real Saka era and followed after only a short interval; for the Sakas in question may have overturned a ruling dynasty in Ujjain."
So far as I can see, there cannot be much doubt that the Kushaņa emperor of the Panjtár and Taxila records was Kujula-Kadphises, and not Vima-Kadphises, who does not on his coins style himself a Kushana.
We learn from Chinese sources that the Yüe-chi, after their defeat by the Hiung-nu in the Becond century B.C., proceeded westwards, and that, on the southern slopes of T'ien-shan, they came into contact with the Sai-wang,' who in their turn migrated southwards and made themselves masters of Ki-pin. Later on, about 160 B.C., the Yüe-chi were attacked by the
* Soe, however, Dr. Fleet's remarks, JRA8., 1914, p. 998 and note 1.
JR48., 1914, pp. 989 t.
2
