________________
No. 28.]
SO-CALLED TAKHT-I-BAHI INSCRIPTION OF THE YEAR 103.
277
Not being myself a numismatist I feel some hesitation in differing from a scholar whose knowledge of Indian coins is probably at the present time unsurpassed. I cannot, however, help thinking that numismatists are too much inclined to construct different rulers at the hand of different coin-types. Just as I have not been able to convince myself of the existence of more than one Azes, in the same way I fail to see that the variety in the titles used by Kujala. Kadphises makes it necessary to assume the existence of more than one ruler of that name. We must not forget that Chinese tradition assigns a long period to his reign.
Kujula Kara Kadphises cannot have been a petty chief or a subordinate ruler like the Kshatrapa Zeionises. He is designated as maharaya rayatiraya and maharaya rayaraya devaputra. Similar titles, viz., maharaja mahata and maharaja rajatiraja are met with on coins which bear the name of Kuyula Kapha, and I do not think that it can reasonably be doubted that Kujala Kadphises and Kujala Kara Kadphises are one and the same person. Sir John Marshall' found at Sirkap a coin showing, on the obverse, the bust of Hermaeus with a corrupt Greek legend, and, on the reverse, a Kharoshthi legend of which we can at least read jula kara. Here Kujala Kara's name occurs on a coin showing the bust of Hermaeus, and thus his identity with Kadphises I becomes still more probable. We do not know the etymological meaning of the word kujula. I may add that I do not any more think it likely that it is a Turki word. We have no certain traces of Turkish in the language or titulature of the Indo-Skythians. The title yavuga, which has often been stated to be an adaptation of the Turki yabgu, has not been etymologically explained, and it is perhaps more probable that it is originally an Iranian word which has been taken over by the Turks than that the opposite should be the case.
I therefore identify Kujala Kara Kadphises with Kujala Kadphises and cannot admit that the use of the monogram in question on the Taxila silver scroll can be urged against the view that the Kushana king mentioned in the inscription is Kujala Kadphises.
There is still another reason which strongly speaks in favour of this identification: Vima Kadphises is never, in his coin-legends, designated as a Kushana, and nobody would, I think, a priori be inclined to identify him with the Gushana-maharaja of the Panjtar inscription and the maharaja rajatiraja devaputra Khuskana of the Taxila silver scroll, if it were not for the common theory that the Saka era was established by Kanishka.
I do not overlook the fact that Sir John Marshall has found some coins at Sirkap which seem to show the legend maharajasa rajatirajasa Khushanasa yavugasa, while the obverse bears the head of a Kushana king, resembling that of Vima Kadphises. Sir John is inclined to ascribe these coins to Vima Kadphises and writes: "The epithet Yavuga (=Turkish jabgou) is found on coins of Kujula Kadphises, and is supposed to have been replaced by the title maharaja rajatiraja after the conquest of India. The simultaneous use, however, of the two terms in one and the same legend appears to indicate that the prevalent view regarding the meaning and use of this title is not wholly correct." He is not, it should be noted, certain about the assignation of these coins to Vima Kadphises, and, in my opinion, the use of the title Khushana yavuga goes a long way towards proving that they should be assigned to Kujala Kadphises. The legend informs us of the fact that he who was then the maharaja rajatiraja had risen to that exalted position from the rank of a Khushana yavuga, and I cannot help thinking that there is a touch of justifiable pride in the wording of the legend.
1 l.c. p. 52,
Cf. Lüders, S. B. 4. W., 1922, pp. 260 f.
Hultzsch, Z. D. M. G. 69, p. 176, thought of güylü, strong, and I have myself, S. B. 4. W., 1916, p. 799, compared güzel, beautiful.
Archeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 1912-13, pp. 44 ff.
