________________
186
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JUNE, 1886.
the above-mentioned grounds are concerned, There remain Nos. 3, 4, and 5, which are read absolutely no support whatever.
respectively as "Gupta" with two doubtful Of the coins in question, those that have the figures, "98 Gu," and "99 Gu;" meaning (6)98 clearest datos on them are Pl. vii. Nos. 24 to 27, and (6)99. And these are unfortunately not so belonging to some unnamed king. They are not easy to deal with, since, though the signs that attributed to Byalapati'; but are considered to are supposed to mean Gupta must be in reality be rather more recent. It is admitted, however, numerals of some kind or another,-there is that they belong to the same series; and I take nothing in Sir E. Clive Bayley's Table, and I can them first because they are so very clear. If we obtain nothing elsewhere, to explain their value examine them with the help of Sir E. Clive as numerals. But, in attempting to find a proper Bayley's Table of Numerals in Pl. vii., it is evident reading of them, we must in the first place notice at once that No. 24 reads, not " 802 Ga," but that the sign which, on Nos. 4 and 5, Sir E. Clive simply "804," with nothing after it; and that Bayley interprete as the figure 9, and enters as Nos, 25, 26, and 27 read, not "812 Gu," but simply such in his Table, occupies exactly the position "814," again with nothing after it, the figures which is filled in Prinsep's coin, noted below, by being in fact absolutely identical with those a symbol resembling a crescent moon on the top of which Sir E. Olive Bayley himself read as simply a short staff with a cross-handle; and this suggests "814" on Nos. 19 to 23, 29 to 31, and 34. In these that the sign in question is not a figure at all. instances, the supposed Gu is nothing but the sign In the hope that some of the readers of this Journal that makes the difference in these numerals may POBBeBe a clue to their real meaning, I now give between a 2 and a 4. And Sir E. Clive Bayley's a reproduction of a the signs that were reading further involves the peculiar anomaly supposed to mean 9 Gupta. The lithothat the figures have to be read in one direction, graph was issued by Sir E. Clive Bayley as capable from the rim of the coin, and the supposed Gu in of being " accepted as a fair rendering of the usual the opposite direction, from the inside of the coin form of the word." But it will be admitted, at once which results in the curious arrangement of "802 and generally I should think, that it answers ng" and "812 np."
in no way whatever to the usual form of the We have here to note that Sir E. Clive Bayley word, and cannot be so interpreted in accordance reported that Mr. Thomas would read the whole with any known alphabet, even though we date in one direction, from the inside of coins, should follow Mr. Thomas in looking upon it as and would interpret it as "Gu 617," denoting the "a degraded and contracted form of the word.” initial date of Samanta's dynasty according to the 1 In trying to find out what these sighs do mean, Gupta era; "and, accepting 319 A.D., according it must be noted that coin No. 3 in Pl. i. gives to Albirúni's statement, as the actual date of the some indications to the effect that the first sign Gupta era, would thus place Samanta's accession as given above, is imperfect on the left side, and in 938 A.D." Allowing for the possibility of the that in its complete form the left side was exactly firat sign being capable of meaning Gu, this way of similar to the right; the whole sign, in fact, being interpretating the figures seems to be equally well something like two crescent moons, back to back, borne out by Sir E. Clive Bayley's Table. But the connected with a bar. first sign cannot mean Gu, and does not inean Also, any information bearing on 'Syalapati's Gu. And a reference to the Table will shew im. real date would of course help much to clear up mediately that the figures have to be read, as Sir the point. And in connection with this, I would E. Clive Bayloy read them, from the rims of the draw special attention to his coin figured in coins; and that the dates are in reality nothing Prinsep's Essays, Vol. I. p. 304, Pl. xxv. No. but 80% and 814, as I have pointed out above. 2, which, as now explained by Sir E. Clive
The coins of Syalapati' himsel are Pl. i. Nos. 3 Bayley's Table, gives the unmistakable date of to 5, and 7 to 10. Of these, No. 7 is read as " 707," 814, traces of which are also discernible in No. 1 and No. 8, 9, and 10 as "727," without any sup- on the same plate. This No. 2 has behind the posed reference at all to the Gupta era; and these horseman the same monogram, wu, (not !!) as Sir readings are in accordance with the Table of E. Clive Bayley's Nos. 25, 26, and 27 have; also, Numerals, if the dates are read from the rim of the As explained by No. 1, it has in the upper corner coin like the dates of Nos. 19 to 27, 29 to 31, and in front of the horseman, the same symbol (inter84, referred to above. On the other hand, if we preted by Sir E. Clive Bayley on his No. 20 as a might read the figures on these seven coins from | rude imitation of adal) that appears in the same the inside, there appears no particular objection position on others of these coins, and resembles a to interpreting them as respectively "808" and crescent moon on the top of a short staff with a "868."
cross-handle. These points of similarity suggest
