Indian Antiquary Vol 42

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 143

MAY, 1913.]
THE INSCRIPTION OF ARA
135
that must be also the case here. Kaņisbka receives bere his whole title, and even a statement about his descent is added. And people generally do not speak in this fashion about a king that was long dead especially when they are silent as regards the name of the reigning king. That explanation, therefore, seems to me out of the question. Another possibility is afforded by the assumption that Kanishka was a contemporary ruler of Vabishka and Huvisbka. Banerji has expressed this view. Accordingly Kanishka, between the years 2013 and 24, would bave handed over the rule of India to V&sishka, who afterwards was succeeded by Huvishka, and himself confined bis rule to the northern part of his empire. This does not appear to be probable, because all other sources are silent. We should above all expect that in the titles of Vásishka and Havishka there should appear an indication of a certain relation of dependence. But in the inscription of Isâpur and Sanchi, Vâsishka bears the title of mahardja rdja tirja devaputra shahi.18 That for Huvishka up to the year 40 only the title of mahdrája devaputra can be ascertained as far as the inscriptions go, is probably a matter of accident. In the inscription of the Naga statue of Chargầon of Sam 4014 and in the inscription of the Wardak vase of Sam 5115, we find that he is called maharaja rajatirdja, apd in the Mathura inscription of Sam 6016 mahardja rájátirdja devaputra. Under these circumstances, it seems to me more probable that the Kaņishka of our inscription is not identical with the celebrated Kanishka. I lay no stress on the fact that Kanishka bere bears a title which is not applied to him anywhere else. But the characterisation as the son of Vajheshka, which too does not appear anywhere else, gives an impression, to me at least, that it was added with a view to differentiate this Kaņishka from the other king, his name-sake. Now the name Vajheshka or Vájheshka sounds so near Våsishka that I look apon both forms only as an attempt to reproduce in an Indian alphabet one and the same barbaric name, 17 These two forms at any rate are closer to each other than, for instance, the various shapes in which the name of Huvishka occurs in inscriptions and on coins. Now, cannot the Kaņishks of our inscription be the son of the successor of the great Kapisbka P He would be probably in that case his grandson, which would well agree with the Dame, because grandsons are, as is well known, often named after the grandfathers. The course of events then would be something like this. Kanishka was followed by Vâsishka between the years 11 and 24. After Våsishka's death, which occurred probably soon after Sam 2818, there was a division of the empire. Kanishka II took possession of the northern portion of the kingdom. In India proper, Huvishka made himself king. The reign of Kanishka II endured at least as far as Sam 41, the date of our inscription. But before Sam 52 Huvishka must have recovered the authority of the northern portion of the empire, for in this year he is mentioned as king in the Kharoshthi inscription which was found at Wardak to the south-west of Kabul.
I do not misapprehend the problematic nature of the construction I have proposed; whether it is correct will depend on further discoveries for which we are fortunately justified in entertaining hopes.
The inscription which presents us with so many new difficulties carries us, however, in my opinion, by means of one word further towards the solution of a question which for the last few
11 This is the date of an insoription in the British Museum which apparently we found in the country about Mathura, (nee Ep. Ind. IX. 239 f.)
18 Jour. R. As. Soc., 1910. 1318; Ep. Ind. II. 369. # VOGEL, Catalogue of the Archeological Museum at Mathura, p. 88. 15 Jour. R. As. Soc., XX. 256 ff.
18 Ep. Ind. 1, 388. 11 Jh and may have been used to expressa #; compare the writing Jhoilasa in Kharoshtht by the ride of ZOIAOY on the coins of Zoilos (Gardner, Coins of Greek and Beythic Kings in Bactria and India, P. 52., 170). It need hardly be noted that the notatione or i before the sh ka makes no difference.
19 In owe the Mathura insoription (Ep. Ind. II. 206, No. 26) in dated in Sam 29 and in the reign of Havisbka.