________________
276
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XVIII.
We know from the Hou Han-shu, the annals of the Later Hang, Ch. 118, fol. 11" that the hi-hou of Kuei-shuang, K'iu-tsiu-k'io, 1.e., Kajüla Kadphises, after conquering four other hi-hous, established himself as wang (king) and used the dynastic title "King of Kuei-shuang", 1.6., Kushana King, that he invaded An-si (Parthia), seized the territory of Kao-fu (Kabul), annihilated Pu-ta and Kipin, and that all these territories formed his empire. He became eighty years old, and was succeeded by his son Yen-Kao-chen, 1.6., Vima Kadphises, who "again" conquered India, where he appointed & general to rule as his vioeroy.
The Hou Han-shu cover the period beginning with 24 A.D. Kajola Kadphises' consolidation of the Kushana empire accordingly falls after that date. Before then he can only have been a petty hi-hou or a young prince. But afterwards he gradually became king (wang) and king of Kuei-shuang.
It will be seen that all these details point to the conclusion that the Kushäņa-Mahārāja was Kujala and not Vima Kadphises. The latter ruler does not seem to have resided in India. He ruled through a vioeroy, and in my opinion this viceroy is the Soter Megas, whose "coins are found in extraordinary abundance, and over a wide stretch of country extending from Peshăwar to Mathuri. These facts point to a great power and a long reign, and are much in favour of the supposition that we must look for Soter Megas amongst the most important of the kings and satraps known to 18, as it is very improbable that such a great potentate would be nameless and unknown except from these coins. The style of the coins, which are in copper only, and the absence of square forme point to a period about the Kushăpa conquest, so that Soter Megas was probably a contemporary of one of the two Kadphises."
"Certain types almost invariably exhibit in the field the Kharoshthi akshara vi,"l and I agree with Cunningham that this vi may possibly be the initial of the king's name, though Mr. Whitehead does not accept this view. If it is correct, we would have a clear indication of Vima Kadphises being the suzerain on whose behalf the Soter Megas coins were issued.
Mr. Whitehead thinks it possible that these coins were struck by more than one ruler. I think that he is right, and that the Soter Megas coinage covers the period from the accession of Vima Kadphises to the installation of Kanishka. Sir John Marshall is no doubt right in assuming an interval between the reigns of Kadphises II and Kanishka, but we have no information about the Kushāņa rulers who held sway at headquarters after the demise of Vima Kadphises.
Moreover the designation Kushana-Maharaja is more easily understandable, without the addition of any personal name, in the case of the ruler who first introduced it, than with his suo. cessor, and if Vima Kadphises was the king who introduced the later Saka era, as I think we must infer from a comparison of Chinese tradition and the Kalakācharyakathānaka, he cannot be the Kushāna-Mahārāja of the Panjtår and Taxila records. We can only think of Kajūla Kadphises.
It has been arged against this that the Taxila scroll shows a monogram which is characteristic of the coins of Vima Kadphises. Sir John Marshall has, however, drawn attention to the fact that the same monogram also occurs on the coins of his predecessor, and I may add that it is likewise met with on coins of Zeionises. Professor Rapsons objects that the coins in question "bear the name not of Kajúla Kadphises, but of Kujala Kara Kadphises, who was probably another member of the dynasty .... Kajala Kara Kadphises seems to have succeeded the Satrap Zeionises in the kingdom of Pushkalivati, and he may have been contemporary with Vima Kadphises."
· Cf. Whitehead, 1.c. p. 160. • Archeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 1919-18, p. 8*. he. p. 5821.
