________________
AUGUST, 1881.)
DATES OF ANCIENT INDIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND COINS.
215
legends (PAONANOPAO KANHPKI): we must there. for the assertion that the Korano or Gufore take it as a Skythian and not a Greek shana princes, and more especially Ka nishword." Here very appropriately the Mani-ka, must be regarded as Sakas. kyâ la inscription" has been alleged, in which What we find, therefore, is this: We know Kanishka is called Gushanava[m]sasanavardha- from coins as well as from inscriptions, of a la, i.e. "he who exalts the Gushan a family." mighty Saka king, Kanishka, who is freThe identity of KOPANO and Gushana is the quently mentioned also in literary documents. less subject to doubt, inasmuch as on the This king must have reigned, as his coins show, coins of Kozulo kad phizes" with KoreHX about the end of the first century A. D. His or XOPCH of the Greek legendo corresponds to large empire extended from Kabulistân to Kushana or Kashana in the Arian legend; on the Mathura, or perhaps still farther. There is no coins of Kozolaka daphes to xOPANCY Indian king in these times whose name at all answers Khashanasa.
rivals Kanishka in fame. On his inscripNow & tetradrachm belonging to the British tions we find an era which occurs frequently on Museum has been recently published with the inscriptions of his successors both in the the legend TYIANNOYNTOΣ HIAOY ΣΑΚΑ | northern and in the Southern part of his realm. KOILANOY. The last word of this legend is On the other hand, we know of an era which read koupávou, which certainly is not correct. was used in India in ancient as well as in The comparation of the coins of Kanishka modern times, the initial date of which is 78 and his successors, on which KOPANO decidedly A. D., and which is styled on ancient monuments means Gushana and not Koipavos, shows that "the era of the Saka king," or "the era of the Gushana must be understood on this coin also. Saka lord's royal abhisheka." I think these Although between the 0 and the A of the word arguments may be considered as satisfactorily in question, not one but two strokes are seen, proving the identity of Kanishka's era with the one of which in tupavyoūros stands for p, con- Saka era. sidering the very irregular palæographical
A further confirmation of this theory results character of the legend, this cannot be given as from what we have to say afterwards regarda proof in favour of the reading koupávou. If we ing the much-vexed question of the Gupta are right, therefore, in reading on this coin era. The Gupta era began, as we shall prove, Kopavov (or koppavou, as we find wdopeppov along
in 319 A. D. Now the Gupta coinage is closely side of wdopepov ?), we have a decisive proof connected with Indo-Skythian coins which can
.
* In passing we may be allowed to add here an observation on the other title which Kanishka and his successors give themselves on their coins-PAONANOPAO. Recently the interpretation of this word, or of these words, as the Prakrit phruse rajunanari rdja (king of kings), has been accepted by several Páli scholars; see, for instance, E. Kuhn's Beiträge sur Pali-Grammatik, p. 88. I consider this explanation quite inadmissible. I do not lay stress on the consideration that the genitive rajundnails with the double ne suffix is formed more boldly than correctly, in spite of imesdnarh and similar genitives (Kachchyana, 11, 1, 62, schol.) But it should be considered that here, as is the case generally in this series of coins, we have Skythian words before us, or Indian words received into the Skythian language, but not pure Indisa words. The corresponding Indian expression for "king of kings" on the connected groups of coins is not rdjúnan rájd or anything like it, but maharaja, rajadiraja, räjardja. PAONANOPAO must, therefore, as was perceived by Prinsep, be a Skythian title formed probably on the model of rdjadiraja (PAOrdjá), but not a Prakrit expression.
13 Prinsep-Thomas, Essays, vol. I, pl. ix.
1. The usually accepted designation of this OOHMOKAADICHO as Kadphines I and Kadphines II appears to me rather incorrect. We do not know of any Kadphises, but only of Kozulokadphizes and Ooomokad. phiees; neither in the Greek nor in the Arian legends is the first element of these names characterized as a separ able, declinable word. To speak of Kadphises I and Kadphises II might very possibly be the same mistake as
if we were to call for instance two princes named Apollodotas and Diodotas, Dotus I and Dotas II.
15 The I must here be read most probably as N.
10 Von Ballet, l. c., pp. 179, 180. Comp. Cunningham (J. As. Soc. Beng., vol. XXXII, pp. 14A Beq.) about the Kushana kings.
1 Num. Chron., N. S. vol. XIV. p. 161 seq. ; von Sallet L. c., p. 75; Thomas, The Gupta Dynasty, pp. 85 et seq., or Archaeolog. Rep. of W. India, vol. II, p. 50.
- This is very clearly seen from Hwen Thaang's statementa. The Chinese pilgrim mentions, for instance, that in the anciennes descriptions du pays it is said: "'Jadis Kin-ni-se-kin, roi de Kien-t'o-lo (Gandhar), faisait sentir sa force redoutable aux royaumes voisins, et l'influence de ses lois se répandait dans les pays lointains" (tom. II, p. 49). "Dans ls quatre centième année apres le Nirvena de Jog-lai le roi Kia-ni-se-kia monta sur le trône et étendit sa puissance sur toute l'ile de Tchen-pou (Jam bud vfpa)" (tom. II, p. 107). The statement that Kanishka lived 400 years after Buddha's death, is repeatedly given by Hwen Thsang, see tome I, p. 95; t. II, p. 172. As it stands, it cannot be in any way accepted. But we find together with this statement the equally inadmissible one that Asoks (i.e. Dharm káoks) reigned 100 years after Buddha's death (II, 170). Thus we may be justified perhaps in supposing that the same error which to the Chinese pilgrim made the time between Buddha and Asoks appear too short by more than 100 years, has influenced also his opinion abont the time elapsed from Buddha to Kanishks. If we collect from what wen Thsang kays, that Kanishka was placed 300 years after Asoka's time, this is nearly true.
