^{page 1 note 1} Albírúní, writing in India in 1031 A.D., tells us, “Le vulgaire, dans l'Inde, compte par siècles, et les siècles se placent l'un après l'autre. On appelle cela le Sanivatsara du cent. Quand un cent est écoulé, on le laisse et l'on en com mence un autre. On appelle cela Loka-kála, c'est-à-dire comput du peuple.”—Reinaud's Translation, Fragments Arabes, Paris, 1845, p. 145.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 2} This second inscription ends with the words Ṣaka Kálagatavdah 726—that is, “Ṣaka Kála years elapsed 726,” equivalent to A.D. 804, which is therefore the date of the temple. This date also corresponds with the year 80 of the local cycle, which is the Loka-kála of Kashmír or cycle of 2,700 years, counted by centuries named after the twenty-seven nakshatras, or lunar mansions. The reckoning, therefore, never goes beyond 100 years, and as each century begins in the 25th year of the Christian century, the 80th year of the local cycle is equivalent to the 4th year of the Christian century.—General Cunningham, A., Archœological Report, 1875, vol. v. p. 181.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 1} “Dr. Bühler has found out the key to the Kashmirean era: it hegius in the year of the Kaliyug 25, or 3076 B.C., when the Saptarshis are said to have gone to heaven. The Kashmír people often omit the hundreds in stating dates. Thus the year 24 (Kashmír era) in which Kalhana wrote his Rájataranginí, and which corresponded with Ṣaka 1070, stands for 4,224.”— Athenœum, 11 20, 1875, p. 675.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 2} Since this was written, General Cunningham's letter of the 30th March, 1876, has appeared in the Athenœum (04 29th, 1876)Google Scholar, from the text of which I extract the following passages. These seem to establish the fact that the optional omission of the hundreds was a common and well-understood rule so early as ahout the age of Asoka. “The passage in which the figures occur runs as follows in the Sahasarâm text:—

iyam cha savane vivuthena dutesa

paṅnalâti satâvivuthati 252.

The corresponding passage in the Rûpnâth text is somewhat different:—

ahậle sava vivasetavâya ati vyathena

sâvane kaṭesu 52 satavivasâta.

The corresponding portion of the Bairât text is lost. My reason for looking upon these figures as expressing a date is that they are preceded in the Rûpnâth text by the word katesu, which I take to be the equivalent of the Sanskrit Krânteshu = (so many years) ‘having elapsed.’”

I do not stop to follow General Cunningham's arguments with regard to the value of the figures which he interprets as 252. The sign for 50, in its horizontal form, has hitherto been received as 80, but that the same symbol came, sooner or later, to represent 50, when placed perpendicularly, is sufficiently shown by Prof. Eggeling's Plate, p. 52, in Vol. VIII. of our Journal. I should, however, take great exception to the rendering of the unit as 2, which, to judge by Mr. Bayley's letter, in the same number of the Athenœum, Gen. Cunningham and Dr. Bühler had at first rightly concurred in reading as 6.

^{page 2 note 3} Hist. Beg. Grœcorum Bactriani, St. Petersburg, 1738, p. 92Google Scholar: “Numus Eucratidis, quern postea copiosius explicabo, annum 108. habet, sine dubio epochae Bactrianae, qui annus ex nostris ratiouibus A.V.C. 606. Septembri mense iniit. Igitur cum hoc in numo victoriae e jus Indicae celebrantur, quibus ut Justinus ait, Indiam in potestatem redegit.” See also pp. 38, 56, 134.

^{page 2 note 4} Wilson, H. H., Ariana Antiqua, pp. 235, 238Google Scholar. General A. Cunningham, Numismatic Chronicle, vol. viii. O.S. p. 170Google Scholar; and vol. viii. N.S. 1868, p. 183; vol. ix. N.S. 1869, p. 230.

^{page 3 note 1} General Cunningham was cognizant of the date ΠΓ = 83 as found on the coins of Heliocles, which he associated with the year B.C. 164, under the assumption that he had detected the true initial date of the Bactrian era, which he had settled to his own satisfaction, “as heginning in B.C. 246.”—Num. Chron. N.S. vol. viii. 1868, p. 266Google Scholar; N.S. vol. ix. 1869, pp. 35, 230. See also MrVaux, 's note, N.C. 1875, vol. xv. p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} The woodcut here given was prepared for Mr. Vaux's original article on this unique coin of Plato, in the Numismatic Chronicle, vol. xv. p. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 2} Gen. Cunningham, N.C. vol. viii. O.S. 1843, p. 175Google Scholar, and vol. ix. N.S. 1869, p. 175.

^{page 4 note 3} “The Chabylians had small shields made of raw hides, and each had two javelins used for hunting wolves. Brazen helmets protected their heads, and above these they wore the ears and horns of an ox fashioned in brass. They had also crests on their helms.” — Herodotus, vii. 76Google Scholar; Rawlinson, , vol. iv. p. 72Google Scholar; Xenophon Anab. v.

^{page 5 note 1} Journal Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XII. p. 41Google Scholar; Journal Asiatic Society Bengal, 1855, p. 565, and 1872, p. 175Google Scholar; Prinsep's Essays, vol. ii. p. 86Google Scholar; Journal Asiatique, 1863, p. 388.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 1} Prof. Wilson's Plates, in his Ariana Antiqua, arranged 35 years ago, and altogether independently of the present argument, will suffice to place this contrast before the reader. The Kadphises group extend from figs. 5 to 21 of plate x. All these coins are bilingual, Greek and Semitic-Bactrian. The Kanerki series commence with No. 15, plate xi., having nothing but Greek legends, either on the obverse or on the reverse, and follow on continuously through plates xii. xiii. and xiv. down to fig. 11. After that, the Greek characters become more or less chaotic, till we reach No. 19.

^{page 7 note 1} Ariana Antiqua, pl. xiv. Nos. 12, 13, H, 16, 17.

^{page 7 note 2} The circumstances bearing upon the battle of Karór (or ) are of so much importance in the history of this epoch, that I reproduce Albírúní's account of that event: “On emploie ordinairement les ères de Sri-Harcha, de Vikramá-ditya, de Ṣaka, de Ballaba, et des Gouptas. … L'ère de Vikramá-ditya est employée dans les provinces méridionales et occidentales de l'Inde. … L'ère de Ṣata, nommée par les Indiens ‘Ṣaka-kâla,’ est postérieure à celle de Vikramàditya de 135 ans. Ṣaka est le nom d'un prince qui a régné sur les contrées situées entre l'Indus et la mer. Sa résidence était placée au centre de l'empire, dans la contrée nommée Aryavartha. Les Indiens le font naître dans une classe autre que celle des Sakya; quelques-uns prétendent qu'il était Soudra et originaire de la ville de Mansoura; il y en a même qui disent qu'il n'était pas de race indienne, et qu'il tirait son origine des régions occidentales. Les peuples eurent beaucoup à souffrir de son despotisme, jusqu'à ce qu'il leur vînt du secours de l'Orient. Vikramáditya marcha contre lui, mit son armée en déroute, et le tua sur le territoire de Korour, situé entre Moultan et le château de Louny. Cette époque devint célèbre, à cause de la joie que les peuples ressentirent de la mort de Ṣaka, et on la choisit pour ère principalement chez les astronomes.”—Beinaud's translation.

General Cunningham has attempted to identify the site of Karór with a position “50 miles S.E. of Multán and 20 miles N.B. of Baháwalpúr,” making the “castle of Loni” into “Ludhan, an ancient town situated near the old bed of the Sutlej river, 44 miles E.N.E. of Kahror and 70 miles E.S.E. of Multán.”— Ancient Geography of India, (Trübner, 1871), p. 241Google Scholar. These assignments, are, however, seriously shaken by the fact that Albírúní himself invariably places these two sites far north of Multán, i.e. according to his latitudes and longitudes, Multán is 91°—29° 30′ N., while Kadór, as he writes it, is 92°—31° N., and Loni (variant Loi) is 32° N.—Sprenger's Maps, No. 12, etc.

^{page 8 note 1} Arch. Rep. vol. iii. p. 38Google Scholar.

^{page 8 note 2} These two dates are quoted from Gen. Cunningham's letter to the Athenœum of 29 04, 1876Google Scholar, as having been lately disco-cerea by.Mr. Growse, B.C.S.

^{page 8 note 3} The 47th year of the Monastery of Huvishka.

^{page 8 note 4} I was at first disposed to infer that the use of the Indian months in their full development indicated a period subsequent to the employment of the primitive three seasons, hut I find from the Western Inscriptions, lately published by Prof. Bhandarkar, that they were clearly in contemporaneous acceptance. While a passage in Hiouen Thsang suggests that the retention of the normal terms was in a measure typical of Buddhist belief, and so that, in another sense, the months had a confessed conventional significance.

“Suivant la sainte doctrine de Jou-laï (du Tathágata), une année se compose de trois saisons. Depuis le 16 du premier mois, jusqu'au 15 du cinquième mois, c'est la saison chaude. Depuis le 16 du cinquième mois, jusqu'au 15 du neuvième mois, c'est la saison pluvieuse (Varchâs). Depuis le 16 de neuvième mois, jusqu'au 15 du premier mois, c'est la saison froide. Quelquefois on divise l'année en quatre saisons, savoir: le printemps, l'été, l'automne et l'hiver.”—Thsang, Hiouen, vol. ii. p. 63Google Scholar. The division into three seasons is distinctly nor.-Vedic.—Muir, , vol. i. p. 13Google Scholar; Elliot, , Glossary, vol. ii. p. 47Google Scholar.

“There are two summers in the year and two harvests, while the winter intervenes between them.”—Pliny, vi. 21Google Scholar; Diod. Sic. I. c. i.

^{page 9 note 1} Besides these inscriptions, there is a record of the name of Kanishka designated as Raja Gandharya, on “a rough block of quartz,” from Zeda, near Ohind, now in the Láhore Museum. This legend is embodied in very small Bactrian letters, and is preceded by a single line in large characters, which reads as follows: San 10 + 1 (= 11) Ashadasa masasa di 20, Udeyana gu. 1. Isachhu nami.” I do not quote or definitively adopt this date, as the two inscriptions appear to me to be of different periods, and vary in a marked degree in the forms as well as in the size of their letters.—Lowenthal, J.A.S.B. 1863, p. 5Google Scholar; Gen. Cunningham, Arch. Report, vol. v. p. 67Google Scholar.

In addition to the above Bactrian Páli Inscriptions, we have a record from Tasua, by the “Satrap Liako Kusuluko,” in “the 78th year of the great king, the Great Moga, on the 5th day of the month Pansemus” (J.R.A.S. xx. O.S. p. 227Google Scholar; J.A.S.B. 1862, p. 40Google Scholar). And an inscription from Takht-i-Bahi of the Indo-Parthian king Gondophares, well known to us from his coins (Ariana Antiqua, p. 340Google Scholar, Prinsep's Essays, vol. ii. p. 214Google Scholar), and doubtfully associated with the Gondoferus of the Legenda Aurea, to the following tenor: “Maharayasa Gudupharasa Vasha 20 + 4 + 2 (= 26) San … Satimae 100 + 3 (= 103) Vesakhasa masasa divase 4.” (Cunningham, Arch. Rep. vol. v. p. 59Google Scholar.) And to complete the series of regal quotations, I add the heading of the inscription from Panjtar of a king of the Kushans: “Sam 100 + 20 + 2 ( = 122) Sravanasa masasa di prathame 1, Maha rayasa Gushanasa Ra …” (ProfessorDowson, , J.R.A.S. Vol. XX. O.S. p. 223Google Scholar; Cunningham, Arch. Rep. vol. v. p. 61Google Scholar.)

This is an inscription which, in the exceptional character of its framework, suggests and even necessitates reconstructive interpretations. The stone upon which it is engrossed was obviously fissured and imperfectly prepared for its purpose in the first instance; so that, in the opening line, Gondophares' name has to be taken over a broken gap with space for two letters, which divides the d from the ph. The surface of the stone has likewise suffered from abrasion of some kind or other, so that material letters have in certain cases been reduced to mere shadowy outlines. But enough remains intact to establish the name of the Indo-Parthian King, and to exhibit a double record of dates, giving his regnal.year and the counterpart in an era the determination of which is of the highest possible importance. The vasha or year of the king, expressed in figures alone, as 26, is not contested. The figured date of the leading era presents no difficulty whatever to those who are conversant with Phœnician notation, or who may hereafter choose to consult the ancient coins of Aradus. 'The symbol for hundreds is incontestable. The preliminary stroke 1, to the right of the sign, in the Western system, marks the simple number of hundreds; in India an additional prolongation duplicates the value of the normal symbol. Under these terms the adoptive Bactrian figures are positive as 103. Before the figured date there is to be fonnd, in letters, the word ṣatimae “in one hundred” or “hundredth,” in the reading of which all concur. It is. possible that the exceptional use of the figure for 100, which has not previously been met with, may have led to its definition and repetition in writing in the body of the inscription, in order that future interpreters should feel no hesitation about the value of the exotic symbol. There was not the same necessity for repeating the 3, the three fingers of which must always have been obvious to the meanest capacity. I have no difficulty about the existence and free currency of the Vikramàditya era per se in its own proper time, which some archæologists are inclined to regard as of later adaptation. But I am unable to concur in the reading of Samvatsara, or to admit, if such should prove the correct interpretation, that the word Samvatsara involved or necessitated a preferential association with the Vikramàditya era, any more than the Samvatsara (J.R.A.S., Vol. IV. p. 500Google Scholar) and Samvatsaraye (ibid. p. 222), or the abbreviated San or Sam, which is so constant in these Bactrian Pali Inscriptions, and so frequent on Indo-Parthian coins (Prinsep's Essays, vol. ii. p. 205Google Scholar, Coins of Azas, Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 12; Azilisas, Nos. 1, etc.; Gondophares, , p. 215, No. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} Abulfazl says “brothers.” Gladwin's Translation, vol. ii. p. 171Google Scholar; Calcutta Text, p. 574Google Scholar.

General Cunningham considers that he has succeeded in identifying all the three capitals, the sites of which are placed within the limits of the valley of Kashmir, i.e.,

“Kanishka-pma (Kanikhpur) hod. Kámpur, is ten miles south of Sirinagar, known as Kámpur Sarai.

“Hushka-para, the Hu-se-kia-lo of Hiuen Thsang—the Ushkar of Albírúní — now surviving in the village of Uskara, two miles south-east of Baráhmula.

“Jushka-pura is identified by the Brahmans with Zukru or Zukur, a considerable village four miles north of the capital, the Scheoroh of Troyer and Wilson.”—Ancient Geography of India (London, 1871), p. 99Google Scholar.

^{page 10 note 2} ProfWilson, H. H., “An Essay on the Hindu History of Kashmír,” Asiatic Eesearches, vol. xv. p. 23Google Scholar; and Trover, 's Histoire des Rois du Kachmir (Paris, 1840–1852), vol. i. p. 19Google Scholar. See also Hiouen-Thsang, (Paris, 1858), vol. ii. pp. 42, 106, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 1} Coin of Vâsu Beva struck in his Eastern dominions. Trésor de Numismatique. Gold. Pl. lxxx.Google Scholar, figs. 10, 11.

Obverse.—Scythian figure, standing to the front, casting incense into the typical small Mithraic altar. To the right, a trident with flowing pennons: to the left, a standard with streamers.

Legend, around the main device, in obscure Greek, the vague reproduction of the conventional titles of ΡΑΟ ΝΑΝΟ ΑΟ ΚΟΡΑΝΟ.

Below the left arm =Vasu, in the exact style of character found in his Mathurá Inscriptions.

Reverse.—The Indian Goddess Párvatí seated on an open chair or imitation of a Greek throne, extending in her right hand the classic regal fillet; Mithraic monogram to the left.

Legend, ΑΡΔΟΧΡΟO, Ard-Ugra= “half Ṣiva,” i.e. P´rvatí.

Those who wish to examine nearly exact counterparts of these types in English publications may consult the coins engraved in plate xiv., Ariana Antiqua, figs. 19, 20. The latter seems to have an imperfect rendering of the va, on the obverse, with su (formed like pu) on the reverse. [For corresponding types see also Journ. As. Soc. Beng. vol. v. pl. 36Google Scholar, and Prinsep, 's Essays, pl. 4Google Scholar. General Cunningham, Numismatic Chronicle, vol. vi. O.S. pl. i. fig. 2.Google Scholar] The u is not curved, but formed by a mere elongation of the downstroke of the s, which in itself constitutes the vowel. The omission of the consecutive Deva on the coins is of no more import than the parallel rejection of the Gupta, where the king's name is written downwards, Chinese fashion, in the confined space below the arm. See also General Cunningham, 's remarks on Vásudeva, J.R.A.S. Vol. V. pp. 193, 195.Google Scholar Gen. Cunningham proposes to amend Prof. Wilson's tentative reading of Baraono on the two gold coins, Antiqua, Ariana, pl. xiv. figs. 14, 18 (p. 378)Google Scholar, into ΡΑΟ ΝΑΝΟ ΡΑΟ ΒΑΖΟΔΗΟ ΚΟΡΑΝΟ. The engraving of No. 14 certainly suggests an initial B in the name, and the ΑΖ and Ο are sufficiently clear. We have only to angularize the succeeding Ο into Δ to complete the identification. These coins have a reverse of Ṣiva and the Bull.—Arch. Rep, vol. iii. p. 42Google Scholar. Dr. Kern does not seem to have been aware of these identifications when he proposed, in 1873 (Révue, Critique, 1874, p. 291)Google Scholar, to associate the Mathurá Vásudeva with the Indo-Sassanian Fehlvt coin figured in Prinsep, , pl. vii.Google Scholar fig. 6. Journ. Roy. Asiatic Soc. Vol. XII. pl. 3Google Scholar; Antiqua, Ariana, pl. xvii.Google Scholar fig. 9.

^{page 11 note 2} The full Devaputra Shahán Sháhi occurs in the Samudra Gupta inscription on the Allahábád Láṭ. It may possibly refer to some of the extra Indian successors of these Indo-Scythians.

^{page 11 note 3} Troyer translates paragraph 171, “Pendant le long règne de ces rois,” vol. i. p. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 4} “The Macedonian months, which were adopted by the Syro-Macedonian cities, and generally by the Greek cities of Asia, after the time of Alexander, were lunar till the reformation of the Roman calendar of Cœsar (by inserting 67 + 23 = 90 days in this year). After that reformation the Greek cities of Asia, which had then become subject to the Eoman Empire, gradually adopted the Julian year. But although they followed the Romans in computing by the solar Julian year of 365d. 6h. instead of the lunar, yet they made no alteration in the season at which their year began (ĕΔΙΟΣ = Oct. Nov.), or in the order of the months.” —Clinton, , Fast. Hell. vol. iii. pp. 202, 347.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 1} Some importance will be seen to have attached to the use of the contrasted terms for national months in olden time, as we find Letronne observing: “Dans tous les exemples de doubles ou triples dates que nous offrent les inscriptions rédigées en Grèce, le mois qui est énoncé le premier est toujours celui dont fait usage la nation à laquelle appartient celui qui parle.”—Letronne, , Inscriptions de l'Egypte (Paris, 1802), p. 263.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 2} Assyrian Discoveries, by Smith, George, London, 1875, p. 389.Google Scholar From the time of the Parthian conquest it appears that the tablets were dated according to the Parthian style. There has always been a doubt as to the date of this revolt, and consequently of the Parthian monarchy, as the classical authorities have left no evidence as to the exact date of the rise of the Parthian power. J, however, obtained three Parthian tablets from Babylon; two of them contained double dates, one of which, being found perfect, supplied the required evidence, as it was dated according to the Seleucidan era, and according also to the Parthian era, the 144th year of the Parthians being equal to the 208th year of the Seleucidse, thus making the Parthian era to have commenced B.C. 248. This date is written: “Month …. 23rd day lííth year, which is called the 208th year, Arsaces, King of kings.”

Clinton, following Justin, and Eusebius, , etc., 250Google Scholar B.C., Romani, Fasti, vol. ii. p. 243Google Scholar, and Hellenici, Fasti, vol. iii. p. 311Google Scholar; Chorenensis, Moses, 201 or 252Google Scholar B.C.; Suidas, 246 B.C.

^{page 12 note 3} “Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king, … reigned in the 137th year of the kingdom of the Greeks.”—Maccabees I. i. 10 —ii. 70, et. seq. “In the 143rd year of the kingdom of the Seleucidæ.”— Josephus, , Ant. xii. 3.Google Scholar “It came to pass ‥ in the 145th year on the 25th of that month which is by us called Chasleu, and by the Macedonians Apelleus, in the 153rd Olympiad, etc.”—xii. 4. “Seleucus cognominato Nicator regnum Babelis, totiusque Eraki, et Chorasanæ, Indiani usque, Ab initio imperii ipsius orditur æra, quæ Alexandri audit, ea nempe qua tempora computant Syri et Hebræi.”—Bar-Hebraeus, Pococke, , p. 63.Google Scholar

“The Jews still style it the Æra of Contracts, because they were obliged, when subject to the Syro-Macedonian princes, to express it in all their contracts and civil writings.”—Gough, 's Seleucidæ, p. 3.Google Scholar

The Syriac text of the inscription at Singanfu is dated “in 1093d year of the Greeks” (A.D. 782).—Kircher, A., La Chine, p. 43Google Scholar; Yule, , Marco Polo, vol. ii. p. 22Google Scholar; see also Mure, 's History of Greece, vol. iv. pp. 74–79.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 1} The dates begin to appear on the Syro-Macedonian coins under Seleucus IV., Trésor de Numismatique, ςΛΡ= 136; Mionnet, , vol. v. p. 30Google Scholar, ΡΛΖ = 137. Cleopatra and Antiochus VIII. also date their coins in the Seleucidan era. See Mionnet, , vol. v. pp. 86, 87.Google Scholar

The Parthian coin dates commence with A.S. ΠΣ = 280 (B.C. 31), ΑΡΤΕ, Artemisius, and continue to A.S. 539, Trés, , de Num. Hois Grecs, pp. 143–147Google Scholar; Lindsay, , Coinage of the Parthians (Cork, 1852), pp. 175–179.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 2} Luni-solar year.

^{page 13 note 3} Solar or Sidereal year. Prinsep, , Useful Tables, pp. 153–7Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 1} “Dans les quatre cents ans qui suivront mon Nirvana, il y aura un roi qui s'illustrera dans le monde sous le nom de Kia-ni-se-kia (Kanishka).”—Mémoires sur les Contrées occidentales (Paris, 1857), i. p. 106.Google Scholar“Dans la 400^e année après le Nirváṇa” (p. 172).Google Scholar This 400 is the sum given in the Lalita Vistára, but the Mongol authorities have 300. Foe-koue Ki, chapter xxv., and Burnouf, 's Intr. Hist. Bud., vol. i. p. 568Google Scholar, “trois cent ans,” p. 579Google Scholar, “un peu plus de quatre cent ans après Çakya, au temps de Kanichka.” Hiuen Thsang confines himself to obscure hundreds in other places. “Dans la centième année après le Nirváṇa de Jou-laï, Aṣoka, roi de Magadha,” p. 170.Google Scholar“La six centième année après le Nirváṇa,” p. 179.Google Scholar Nágàrjuna is equally dated 400 years after Buddha. “Nágàrjuna is generally supposed to have flourished 400 years after the death of Buddha.”—As. Ees. vol. xx. pp. 400, 513.Google Scholar Csoma de K oros, Analysis of the Gyut. See also As. Res. vol. ix. p. 83; xv. p. 115; and Burnouf, , vol. i. p. 447Google Scholar, and J.A.S.B. vol. vii. p. 143. M. Foucaux, in his Tibetan version of the Lalita Vistára, speaks of Nágàrjuna as flourishing “cent ans après le mort Mouni, de çakya, p. 392, note.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} Reinaud, , loc. cit. pp. 137, 139.Google Scholar Albírúní here rejoices, that “cette époque s'exprime par un nombre rond et n'est embarrassée ni de dizaines ni d'unités,” which seems to show how rarely, in his large experience, such a phenomenon had been met with.

^{page 15 note 1} The era of Yezdegird commenced 16th June, 632 A.D. The date on Mahmúd's tomb is 23rd Rabí’ the second, A.H. 421 (30th April, A.D. 1030).

^{page 15 note 2} Albírúní was naturally perplexed with the identities of Vikramáditya and Sáliváhana, and unable to reconcile the similarity of the acts attributed alike to one and the other. He concludes the passage quoted in note 2, p. 7, in the following terms: —“D'un autre côté, Vikramaditya, reçut le titre de Ṣri (grand) à cause de l'honneur qu'il s'était acquis. Du reste, l'intervalle qui s'est écoulé entre l'ère de Vikramáditya et la mort de Saka, prouve que le vainqueur n'était pas le célèbre Vikramáditya, mais un autre prince du même nom.”—Reinaud, , p. 142.Google Scholar

Major Wilford, in like manner, while discussing the individualities of his “8 or 9 Vikramádityas,” admitted that “the two periods of Vikramáditya and Sáliváhana are intimately connected, and the accounts we have of these two extraordinary personages are much confused, teeming with contradictions and absurdities to a surprising degree.”—As. Res., vol. ix. p. 117; see also vol. x. p. 93.

A passage lately brought to notice by Dr. Bühler throws new light upon this question, for, in addition to supplying chronological data of much importance in regard to the interval of 470 years which is said to have elapsed between the great Juina Mahávíra (the 24th Tírthankara) and the first Vikramáditya of B.C. 57, it teaches us that there were Ṣaka kings holding sway in India in B.C. 61–57, which indirectly confirms the epoch of the family of Heraüs, and explains how both Vikramádityas, at intervals of 135 years, came to have Ṣaka enemies to encounter, and consequently equal claims to titular Ṣakári honours.

“1. Pálaka, the lord of Avanti, was anointed in that night in which the Arhat and Tírthankara Mahávíra entered Nirváṇa. 2. 60 are (the years of Eng Pálaka, but 155 are (the years) of the Nandas; 108 those of the Mauryas, and 30 those of Púsamitta (Pushyamitra). 3. 60 (years) ruled Balamitra and Bhánumitra, 40 Nabhovahana. 13 years likewise (lasted) the rule of Garda-bhilla, and 4 are (the years) of ṇaka.”—From the Prakrit Gáthás of Merutunga, etc.

“These verses, which are quoted in a very large number of Jaina commentaries and chronological works, but the origin of which is not clear, give the adjustment between the eras of Víra and Vikrama, and form the basis of the earlier Jaina chronology.”—DrBühler, , Indian Antiquary, vol. ii. p. 363.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 1} Records of the Gupta Dynasty (Triibner, 1876), p. 37.Google Scholar

“It is in regard to the typical details, however, that the contrast between the pieces of Mauas and Heraüs is most apparent. Mauas has no coins with his own bust among the infinite variety of his mint devices, nor has Azas, who imitates so many of his emblems. But, in the Gondophares group, we meet again with busts and uncovered heads, the hair being simply bound by a fillet, in which arrangement of the head-dress Pakores, with his bushy curls, follows suit. But the crucial typical test is furnished by the small figure of victory crowning the horseman on the reverse, which is so special a characteristic of the Parthian die illustration.

“We have frequent examples of Angels or types of victory extending regal fillets in the Bactrian series, but these figures constitute as a rule the main device of the reverse, and are not subordinated into a corner, as in the Parthian system. The first appearance of the fillet in direct connexion with the king's head in the Imperial series, occurs on the coins of Arsaces XIV., Orodes (B.C. 54–37), where the crown is borne by an eagle (Lindsay, , History of the Parthians, Cork, 1852, pl. iii.Google Scholar fig. 2, pp. 146–170; Trésor de Numismatique, pl. lxviii. fig. 17)Google Scholar; but on the reverses of the copper coinage this duty is already confided to the winged figure of Victory (Lindsay, pl. v. fig. 2, p. 181). Arsaces XV., Phrahates IV. (37 B.C.-4 A.D.), continues the eagles for a time, but progresses into single (Ibid., pl. iii. fig. 60; v. fig. 4, pp. 148, 170; Trésor de Numismatique, pl. lxviii.Google Scholar fig. 18; pl. lxix. fig. 5), and finally into double figures of Victory eager to crown him (Ibid., pl. iii. figs. 61–63), as indicating his successes against Antony and the annexation of the kingdom of Media (Lindsay, , p. 46Google Scholar; Rawlinson, , The Sixth Monarchy, p. 182)Google Scholar.

“Henceforth these winged adjuncts are discontinued, so that, if we are to seek for the prototype of the Heraüs coin amid Imperial Arsacidan models, we are closely limited in point of antiquity, though the possibly deferred adoption may be less susceptible of proof”

^{page 16 note 2} The period of Isidore of Charax has been the subject of much controversy. The writer of the notice in Smith's Dictionary contents himself with saying, “He seems to have lived under the early Roman Emperors.” C. Miiller, the special authority for all Greek geographical questions, sums up his critical examination of the evidence to the point: “Probant scriptorem nostrum Augusti temporibus debere fuisse proximum.”—Geog. Grec. Min. vol. i. p. lxxxv.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 3} 17. Ἐντεθεν Ζαραγγιαν⋯, σχονοι κ⋯. Ἔνθα πόλις Πάριν κα⋯ Κορ⋯κ πόλις. 18. Ἐντεθεν Σακασταν⋯ Σακν Σκυθν, ⋯ κα⋯ Παραιτακην⋯, σχονοι ξ. Ἔνθα Βαρδ⋯ πόλις κα⋯ Μ⋯ν πόλις κα⋯ παλακεντ⋯ πόλις κα⋯ Σιγ⋯λ πόλις ἔνθα βασίλεια Σακν κα⋯ πλησίον Ἀλεξάνδρεια πόλις (κα⋯ πλησίον Ἀλεξανδρόπολις πόλις κμαι δ⋯ ἕξ. Isidore of Charax, “Stathmi Parthici,” ed. Müller, C., Paris, pp. 253.Google Scholar lxxxv. and xciii., map No. x. The text goes on to enumerate the stages up to Alexandropolis μητρόπολις Ἀραχωσίας and concludes: Ἄχρι τούτου ⋯στ⋯ν ⋯ τν Πάρθων ⋯πικράτεια I annex for the sake of comparison Ptolemy's list of the cities of Drangia, after the century and a half which is roughly estimated as the interval between the two geographers. Sigal and Sakastanè seem alike to have disappeared from the local map. 1. Προφθασία. 2. ῾Ροδα. 3. Ἴννα. 4. Ἀρικάδα. 5. Ἄστα. 6. Εαρξιάρη. 7. Νοστάνα. 8. Φαραζάνα. 9. Βιγίς. 10. Ἀριάσπη. 11. Ἀράνα — Ptolemy, lib. vi. cap. 19; Hudson, , vol. iii. p. 44Google Scholar; Journ. R.A.S. Vol. X. p. 21Google Scholar, and Vol. XV. pp. 97, 160, 206; Darius, ' Inscription, Persian “Saka,”Google Scholar Scythic “Sakka.” The old term of is preserved in all the intelligent Persian and Arabian writers. Majmal Al Tawáríkh, Journ. Asiatique, 1839 ; Hamza Isfaháni p. 50; p. 51. And the Armenians adhere to the Sakasdan. — Moses of Khorene, , French edition, vol. ii. p. 143Google Scholar; Whiston, , pp. 301, 364Google Scholar; St.-Martin, , L'Arménie, vol. ii. p. 18.Google Scholar “ Les villes principals sont: Zalek, Kerkouyah, Hissoum, Zaranj, et Bost, où l'on voit les ruines de l'écurie de Roustam, le Héros.”—B. de Meynard, La Perse, p. 303. Other references to the geography of this locality will be found in Pliny vi. 21; Ouseley's Oriental Geography, p. 205; Anderson, 's Western Afghánistan, J.A.S. Bengal, 1849, p. 586Google Scholar; Leech, (Sekwa), J.A.S.B., 1844, p. 117Google Scholar; Khanikoff, , ‘Asie Centrale,’ Paris, 1861, p. 162Google Scholar (Sékouhé); Ferrier, 's Travels, p. 430Google Scholar; Malcolm, 's Persia, vol. i. p. 67Google Scholar; Pottinger, 's Beloochistán, pp. 407–9Google Scholar; Burnouf, 's Yaçna, p. xcix.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 1} “This fortress is the strongest and most important in Seistán, because, being at 5 parasangs from the lake, water is to be obtained only in wells which have been dug within its enceinte. The intermediate and surrounding country being an arid parched waste, devoid not only of water, but of everything else, the besiegers could not subsist themselves, and would, even if provisioned, inevitably die of thirst. It contains about 1200 houses. … I have called it the capital of Seistán, but it is impossible to say how long it may enjoy that title.” —Caravan Journeys of J. P. Femer, edited by Seymour, H. D., Esq., Murray, 1857, p. 419.Google Scholar “On the 1st February, 1872, made a 30 mile march to Sekuha, the more modern capital of Seistán; finally we found Sekuha itself amid utter desolation.”—SirGoldsmid, F. J.. From R.Geog. Soc. 1873, p. 70.Google Scholar See also SirRawlinson, H.'s elaborate notes on Seistán, p. 282Google Scholar, “Si-koheh” [three hills], in the same volume. I may add in support of this reading of the name of the capital, that it very nearly reproduces the synonym of the obscure Greek Σιγάλ in the counterpart Pehlvi Sí gar or gal, which stands equally for “three hills.” Tabarí tells us that in the old language, “guer a le sens de montagne” (Zotenberg, vol. i. p. 5), and Hamza Isfahání equally recognizes the ger as “colles et montes” (p. 37).Google Scholar The interchange of the rs and ls did not disturb the Iránian mind any more than the indeterminate use of gs and ks. See Journ. R.A.S. Vol. XII. pp. 265, 268Google Scholar, and Vol. XIII. p. 377. We need not carry on these comparisons further, but those who wish to trace identities more completely may consult Pictet, , vol. i. p. 122Google Scholar, and follow out the Sanskrit giri, Slave gora, etc. Since the body of this note was set up in type, Sir F. Goldsmid's official report upon “Eastern Persia” has been published, and supplies the following additional details as to the characteristics of Sikoha:—“The town, … which derives its name from three clay or mud hills in its midst, is built in an irregular circular form around the base of the two principal hills. The southernmost of these hills is surmounted by the ark or citadel, an ancient structure known as the citadel of Mir Kuchak Ehán. … Adjoining this, and connected with it, is the second hill, called the Búrj-i-Falaksar, on which stands the present Governor's house; and about 150 yards to the west is the third hill, not so high as the other two, undefended. … The two principal hills thus completely command the town lying at their base, and are connected with one another by a covered way.” “Sekuha is quite independent of an extra-mural water supply, as water is always obtainable by digging a few feet below the surface anywhere inside the walls, which are twenty-five feet in height, strongly built.”—Smith, Major E., vol. i. p. 258.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} The progressive stages of this Monogram are curious. We have the normal —Mionnet, pl. i. No. 12; Lindsay, Coins of the Parthians, , pl. xi.Google Scholar No. 7. Next we have the Bactrian varieties and entered in Prinsep, 's Essays, pl. xi.Google Scholar c. No. 53; Num. Chron. vol. xix. o.s. Nos. 48, 52, and vol. viii. N.S. pl. vii. Nos. 71, 72, and 76; and likewise Mionnet's varieties, Nos. 156, 299: Ariana, Antiqua, pl. xxii.Google Scholar No. 118.

^{page 18 note 2} I am indebted to Mr. P. Gardner for this woodcut. I retain his description of the coin as it appeared in the Numismatic Chronicle, 1874, vol. xiv. N.S. p. 161.Google Scholar It will be seen that Mr. Gardner failed to detect the worn outline of the Monogram.

^{page 19 note 1} Num. Chron. vol. iv. N.S. p. 209Google Scholar, pl. viii. fig. 7.

^{page 19 note 2} J.R.A.S., Vol. IV. N.S. p. 504Google Scholar; Records of the Gupta Dynasty, p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 3} de Bartholomæi, M., Koehne's Zeitschrift, 1843, p. 67Google Scholar, pl. iii. fig. 2; Reply to Droysen, M., Zeitschrift für Münz, 1846Google Scholar; my papers in Prinsep, 's Essays (1858), vol. i. p. xvi.Google Scholar, vol. ii. pp. 178–183; in the Numismatic Chronicle, vol. ii. 1862, p. 186; and Journ. R. A. S., Vol. XX. 1863, p. 126Google Scholar; Rochette, M. Raoul, Journal des Savants, 1844, p. 117Google Scholar; Droysen, , Geschichte des Hellenismus, Hamburg, 1843Google Scholar; Lassen, , Ind. Alt., 1847Google Scholar; Gen. Cunningham, , Numismatic Chronicle, vol. viii. N.S. 1868, p. 278Google Scholar, et seq., ix. 1869, p. 29; MrVaux, , Numismatic Chronicle, vol. xv. N.S. p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 1} Journal Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XX. p. 127Google Scholar; Numismatic Chronicle, N.S. vol. ii. p. 186.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 2} I have long imagined that I could trace the likeness of Antiochus Theos on the obverse of the early gold, coina of Diodotus (Prinsep, 's Essays, pl. xlii. 1Google Scholar; Num. Chron. vol. ii. N.S. pl. iv. figs. 1–3Google Scholar). I suppose, however, that in this case the latter monarch used his suzerain's ready-prepared die for the one face of his precipitate and perhaps hesitating coinage, conjoined with a new reverse device bearing his own name, which might have afforded him a loophole of escape on his “right to coin” being challenged. Apart from the similarity of the profile, the contrast between the high Greek art and perfect execution of the obverse head, and the coarse design and superficial tooling of the imitative reverse device, greatly favours the conclusion of an adaptation, though the motive may have been merely to utilize the obverses of existing mint appliances of such high merit.

^{page 21 note 1} See also the short copies of my Essay on the Records of the Gupta Dynasty, London, 1876, p. 31.Google Scholar