^{page 665 note 1} Or possibly at Jālandhar, which view has been favoured by Kern, , Manual of Indian Buddhism, p. 121Google Scholar.

^{page 666 note 1} For a list of these theories see Smith, V. A., “The Kushān Period of Indian History,” JRAS., 1903, pp. 1ff.Google Scholar; and Banerji, R. D., “The Scythian Period of Indian History,” IA., 1903, pp. 27–8Google Scholar.

^{page 666 note 2} Fleet, , JRAS., 1907, pp. 169ff.Google Scholar

^{page 667 note 1} The strict transliteration of the Greek form of the name of this king would be Ooēmo: the Kharoshṭhī form is Vima. I use for easy recognition a form which has been made familiar by previous writers.

^{page 669 note 1} “Le titre de hi-heou (yap-heou) est un ancien titre turc qui était déjà en usage chez les Hiung-nou au deuxième siècle avant notre ère; Hirth y a reconnu le mot turc jab-gou qui est transerit ye-hou à I'époque des T'ang” (Chavannes, , Les pays d'Occident d'après le Heou Han Chou, p. 43, n. 3)Google Scholar. M. Chavannes'translation of chapter cxviii of the history of the Later Han (Heou Han Chou) was originally published in the T'oung-pao, sér. II, vol. viii, No. 2, pp. 153 ff. My quotations from and references to this invaluable translation are from the reprint in pamphlet form published by “E. J. Brill, Leide, 1907”.

^{page 669 note 2} The creation of these five principalities was apparently not known to Sze-ma-t'sien, who was born 163 B.C. and whose history comes down to 97 B.C.; at least they are not mentioned in Kingsmill's translation (or epitome) of the 123rd chapter of the Shi-ki, JRAS., January, 1882, p. 160.

^{page 669 note 3} By Marquart, (Erāshahr, pp. 242–8)Google Scholar, who “a institué sur ces données une discussion lumineuse qui a fixé d'une manière définitive la situation de ces cinq royaumes” (Chavannes, op. cit., n. 1, p. 44, where the whole subject is treated in full detail).

^{page 669 note 4} “Le Kouei-chouang serait immédiatement au Nord de Gandhāra; d'après O. Francke ce serait le Gandhāra lui-meme” (Chavannes, op. cit., p. 45, note).

^{page 669 note 5} Cf. Ptolemy, Geog. vii, 11, § 6, and his map of Bactṟiana.

^{page 670 note 1} “L'identité de K'ieou-tsieou-k'io et de Kozoulo Kadphisés, proposée d'abord par Cunningham, me parait avoir été mise hors de doute par les recherches de P. Boyer” (Chavannes, op. cit., p. 45, n. 2).

^{page 670 note 2} Ujfalvy, , Les Aryans, etc., p. 72Google Scholar. Ujfalvy's analysis of these heads is interesting. He says of Wema Kadphises, whom, following Cunningham, he puts before Kanishka: “Il est franchement brachycéphale et même hypsicéphale. A côté d'une barbe abondante mais raide, nous rencontrons un facies grossier, un nez long, gros et carré, et le bas de la figure qui avance; les yeux paraissent légèrement bridés et les pommettes sont saillantes. Mais c'est surtout le nez qui est caractéristique par la place énorme qu'il occupe par rapport au reste du visage. Kanerkés (80 ans après J.C.) et Houerkés (120 ans après J.C.) présentent toujours le même type; cependant les traits sont affinés, le corps s'est aminci, ce n'est plus la grossière stature taillée à coup de hache de Kadphisés II.” Then follows a description of a particular coin representing Huvishka: “néanmoins, la figure de ce roi présente déjà un certain air hindou.” In the life of Seng-houei (260 a.d.) translated by Chavannes we have the portrait of a Sogdian, whom I take to be a Yue-che: “c'était un homme mince et long, noir et maigre; dans ses yeux, le blane dominait et l'iris était jaune.” Clearly an Indian figure, only somewhat darker. But Seng-houei's family had been settled for several generations in India, and his father had migrated as a merchant to Tonkin. The Yue-che who settled in India appear to have become rapidly Hinduized, differing from the Hindus in look much as the Goanese do at the present day.

^{page 671 note 1} Devaputra, Shaonano Shao, Mahārāja Rājātirāja, BACIΛEYC BACIΛEωN.

^{page 671 note 2} Fleet, , JRAS., 1907, p. 171Google Scholar: but I understand that he would now omit the Māṇikiāla inscription from the category of “contemporaneous” notices.

^{page 671 note 3} But see the preceding note.

^{page 671 note 4} Banerji, R. D. (“The Scythian Period of Indian History,” IA., 1908, p. 59Google Scholar) translates the inscription from Ara, now in the Lahore Museum, thus: “In the year forty-one, 41, on the fifth day of the month of Caitra, in the reign of Mahārāja Rājātirāja Devaputra Kaniṣka, the son of Vasiṣpa.” Vogel, says: “I do not attempt to explain the difficulty offered by the Kharoṣṭhī inscription from Ara, which is dated in the year 41 and in the reign of one Kaniṣka, the son of Vasiṣpa” (JRAS., 1910, p. 1314)Google Scholar. On p. 1313 he says: “The latest known record dated in the reign of Kaniṣka is found on the' sculptured slab in the British Museum edited by Professor Lüders: it bears the year 10. I am aware that the Manikyālā inscription of the year 18 contains the name of Kaniṣka, but if we adopt the latest reading of this difficult document by Professor Lüders, it would not bear out that it belongs to the reignof that, king.” It is not clear how he thus came to cite the year 10 as the latest date for Kanishka: the Suē-Vihār inscription (IA., x, 326; xi, 128) and the Zeda inscription (JA., 1890, pt. i, p. 140) are dated in his reign and in the year 11. For Professor Lüders' rendering of the Māṣikiāla inscription, v. JRAS., 1909, pp. 645 ff.

^{page 672 note 1} Fleet, , “A hitherto unrecognised Kushaṣ King”: JRAS., 1903, p. 325Google Scholar.

^{page 672 note 2} Ibid., and Vogel, , “Vāsiṣka, the Kuṣana”: JRAS., 1910, p. 1313Google Scholar.

^{page 672 note 3} Rājataraṅgiṇī, bk. i, 169; tr. Stein. Kalhana (verse 168) has the name Kanishka in that same form: for Huvishka he has Hushka, and for Vāsishka, Jushka.

^{page 673 note 1} Fleet, , “Moga, Maues, and Vonones”: JRAS., 1907, p. 1013Google Scholar. Dr. Fleet's conclusions are borne out, I think, by general considerations drawn from the history of the Śakas.

^{page 674 note 1} The legends regarding Kanishka are chiefly to be found in Hiuen Tsiang and in Lévi, S., “Notes sur les Indo-Scythes,” JA., 1896, pt. ii, pp. 444 ff.Google Scholar, and JA., 1897, pt. i, pp. 5 ff. The notices which M. Lévi has collected are for the most part earlier than Hiuen Tsiang. The earliest mention of Kanishka given by M. Lévi is in a Chinese translation of 383 a.d.

^{page 674 note 2} I know of no evidence whatever to show that Kanishka ever ruled outside the borders of India; indeed, the legends expressly say that he was master of the south and east, but not of the north. It is vain, therefore, to seek for him a place in the history of Bactria, an error which has misled even so eminent a scholar and critic as M. Boyer.

^{page 674 note 3} It is scarcely necessary to say that Kanishka, being a Kushan, was a Tushāra, but not a Turk. The Tochāri were of the great Turki race, but perfectly distinct from their enemies the Hiung-nu, a remnant of whom lived in the Altai Mountains, and, revolting from their masters the Sien-pi, first became famous as Turks in the fifth and sixth centuries of our era.

^{page 675 note 1} Ngan-si = Arsak; v. Chavannes, op. cit., p. 31, n. 1.

^{page 676 note 1} The Armenians gave the name of Kushan to the country north of the Paropamisus and Elburz ranges as far almost as the Caspian (Moses of Khorene, trad. Françhise par P. C. de Vaillant de Florival, bk. ii, c. 2, 67, pp. 141, 308). Margiana was included in it (Am. Mareellinus, xxiii, 6). Am. Marcellinus calls the kings. Bactrians, and says that many nations were subject to them, of whom the Tochāri were the bravest and most powerful; “Gentes iisdem Bactrianis obediunt plures quas exsuperant Tochari.”

^{page 676 note 2} Chavannes, op. cit., pp. 45–6.

^{page 676 note 3} Chavannes, op. cit., p. 46.

^{page 677 note 1} The Indians who fought in the army of Darius at Arbela were from Afghanistan; they are described as being either coterminous with the Bactrians or mountaineers.

^{page 677 note 2} Mans. Parth.

^{page 677 note 3} Chavannes, op. cit., pp. 46–7.

^{page 678 note 1} Chavannes, op. cit., pp. 48–9.

^{page 678 note 2} Fan Ye says (Chavannes, op. cit., p. 22): “Les notices que Pankou a écrites sur la configuration et les mœurs (d'Occident) se trouvent détaillées et complétés dans le livre (des Han Antérieurs); maintenant j'ai choisi ce que dans les événements de la période Kien-won (25–55 a.d.) ou postérieurs à cette période, était différent de ce qui a été déjà dit auparavant, et j'en ai composé le chapitre sur les pays d'Occident: tousces faits ont été relatés de Pan Yong à la fin du règne de l'empereur Ngan (107–25 a.d.).” Afterwards Fan Ye tells us that some of his remarks about India were taken verbatim from Pan Yong. I may explain that Pan Yong was the son of the great Chinese general Pan-Tch'ao, who restored Chinese authority throughout the West, and himself had served in the Western regions.

^{page 678 note 3} Chavannes, op. cit., p. 45, n. 1.

^{page 679 note 1} Grundriss: “Indian Coins,” by Rapson, E. J., p. 4Google Scholar. V. Smith to the same effect, JRAS., 1903, pp. 4–5; but see my remarks on the subject of the aurei in Part II.

^{page 679 note 2} None of Kozoulo Kadphises' rivals appear to have claimed the dignity, and the bulk of the Tochāri tribe which pastured its flocks by the Oxus banks submitted to Kozoulo Kadphises without any opposition. The last member of the old royal house whom we hear of is a queen; with her perhaps the royalty became insignificant or extinct. But our knowledge of Scythian history in Turkestan in the first century B.C. is almost nil.

^{page 680 note 1} The map given in Wroth's Catalogue of the Parthian coins (Greek) in the British Museum shows the extent of the Parthian dominions bothin Bactria and west of Kābul. St. Thomas was the apostle of the Parthians, but his visit to Gondophernes the Indo-Parthian was the subject of the legend. Thus the word Parthian was used in a much wider sense than Arsacid.

^{page 680 note 2} For Gondophernes, and Kābul, v. Cunningham, ASI, vol. ii, p. 59Google Scholar, and “Coins of the Sakas”, Class B, p. 20 (Num. Chron., ser. III, vol. x, pp. 105 ff.).

^{page 680 note 3} I assume (1) that the attribution of Gondophernes to the first half-century of the Christian era is certain; (2) that the year 103 of the Takht-i-Bahāi inscription is to be calculated from 58 b.c.; (3) that M. Boyer has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Western Kṣatrapas, presumably Nahapāna, instituted the Śaka era. Reams have been written regarding all three subjects, but I think that the above commands the general consensus of scholars. The reasons in support of each proposition are strong, and I have never seen anything of weight to the contrary. For Boyer's, M. article v. JA., 1897, ii, pp. 120 ff.Google Scholar For the identity of the Mambanos of the Periplus and Nahapāna, v. M. Boyer, op. cit., pp. 134–8, and Fleet, , JRAS., 1907, p. 1043Google Scholar.

^{page 680 note 4} The words “the continuous era” are in accordance with Senart's, M. reading and translation of the text; JA., 1890, pt. i, p. 123Google Scholar.

^{page 681 note 1} Wema Kadphises was a very powerful prince according to Fan Ye. He is probably the Yue-che prince referred to in Fan Ye's biography of Pan-Tch'ao (32–102 a.d.), translated by M. Chavannes from the seventyseventh chapter of the History of the Han, Later (T'oung-pao, sér. n, vol. vii, No. 2Google Scholar; reprint by Brill, Leiden, 1906). Before 88 a.d. the Yue-che were friendly to the Chinese, and had given them important aid in the attack on Turfan; they sent presents in 88 a.d. to the Court of China, and asked for a Chinese princess in marriage. Pan-Tch'aostopped the embassy, and two years later (in 90 a.d.) the Yue-che prince sent his viceroy Sie with 70,000 men across the Pamirs to attack Pan-Tch'ao. Pan-Tch'ao devastated the country, and Sie, unable to support his army, was glad to make ạ safe retreat. Peace was restored, but in 114–16 the Yue-che again sent an army across the Pamirs to support a claimant to the throne of Kashgar.

^{page 681 note 2} Ptolemy, Geog., vii, §§ 47–50; cf. McCrindle, , Ancient India as described by Ptolemy, pp. 124 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 682 note 1} “Dans le Jambudvīpa il y a … 4 fils du ciel. A l'est il y a le Fils du Ciel des Tsin; la population y est très prospère. Au sud il y a le Fils du Ciel du royaume T'ien-tchou (Inde); la terre produit beaucoup d'éléphants renommés. A l'ouest il y a le Fils du Ciel deTa-Tsin (l'empire Romain); la terre produit de l'or, de l'argent, des pierres précieuses en abondance. Au nord-ouest il y a le Fils du Ciel des Yue-tchi; la terre produit beaucoup de bons chevaux” (Lévi, S., “Note sur les Indo-Scythes,” JA., neuv. sér., vol. ix, pt. i, p. 24, note, 1897)Google Scholar. The Turcoman horses were famous in antiquity; Alexander took them for remounts for his cavalry, and in India they are famous still.

^{page 683 note 1} Lévi, S., “Notes sur les Indo-Scythes,” JA., 1897, pt. i, p. 10Google Scholar, note: “Chez les bouddhistes, un passage du Samyuktāgama, cité dans une compilation chinoise du v–vi^e siècle—prédit la domination simultanée des Ye-po-no (Yavanas) au nord, des Che-kia (Sakas) au sud, des Po-la-p'o (Pahlavas) à l'ouest, des Teon-cha-lo, (Tuṣāras) à l'est.”

^{page 684 note 1} Wylie, A., “Notes on the Western Regions, etc.”: Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. x, pp. 35, 39, 1880Google Scholar. According to Pan-ku, Woo-yih-shan-li bordered on Ki-pin; the currency in both countries was the same; the Ki-pin currency therefore obtained throughout the whole region from Kashmir to Herat.

^{page 685 note 1} In the same way the gold daries of the Achæmenids continued to circulate in Asia Minor for a hundred years after Alexander (Reinach, , L'histoire par les Monnaies, 1902, p. 59)Google Scholar.

^{page 685 note 2} Cunningham has suggested that the gold darics of the Achæmenids were still in circulation; but this is not only a pure guess, it is contradicted by the scarcity of gold before Kanishka's time, as we shall presently see. The real difficulty lies in Pan-ku's description of the coins in circulation. He says that both in Ki-pin and Woo-yih-shan-li the coins represented a horseman on one side and a man's head on the other. The horseman type shows at once that Pan-ku is talking of the silver Śaka or Indo-Parthian coinage, but the man's head does not apparently occur except on the copper coins of the nameless king. Possibly a bust is meant. A similar difficulty occurs in Pan-ku's description of the Parthian coinage, which, he says, has the king's head on the obverse and a woman's on the reverse. This is true only of the brief reign of Phraataces and Musa (2 b.c.–4 a.d.) and on some rare bronze coins of Gotarzes (40–51 a.d.). Pan-ku must in each case have seen or heard of only some exceptional specimens, but he could not be mistaken as to the metals used in the currency.

^{page 685 note 3} For the story of Yin-mŭh-foo see Wylie's, translation of Pan-ku (Journ. Anthrop. Inst., 1880, p. 36)Google Scholar.

^{page 686 note 1} We have an inscription of the year 122 which mentions a Kushan king whose name is lost (Cunningham, , ASI., v, p. 61)Google Scholar. Dr. Fleet has furnished me with the following list of inscriptions with dates higher than the year 100.—“Kharōshthī inscriptions. Year 103 (Takht i-Bahāi inscription of Gondophernes) Cunningham, , ASI., v, p. 59Google Scholar; Senart, in JA., 1890, pt. 1, p. 123Google Scholar(also Fleet, , JRAS., 1905, p. 229)Google Scholar. Year 111: Banerji, R. D., IA., 1908, p. 64Google Scholar. Year 113: ibid., p. 66. Year 122: Cunningham, , ASI., v, p. 61Google Scholar, pl. xvi; certainly seems to mention a ' great king, the Gushana.'whose name is lost, (a) Year 318: Senart, , JA., 1899, pt. 1, p. 528Google Scholar; see also Marshall's Report for 1903 4, p. 251. (b) Year 384. Buhler, , IA., 20, 394Google Scholar. But the year is wrongly given there as 274. Senart, I think, showed somewhere that it is 384. See also Marshall's Report for 1903–4, p. 251. (c) Year 399: Vogel in Marshall's Report for 1903–4, p. 255. The year is unmistakably 399, not 179 (or 197) as read there. From Mathurā we have the curious Brāhmi Jain (not Kharōshthī) inscription of the year 299, which omits to give the king's name (IA., 1908, p. 34). This is the only known record in the third century of the era. It is a peculiar record m many respects” For other lists of dated inscriptions see Smith, V., JRAS., 1903, pp. 8 ffGoogle Scholar; Banerji, R. D., IA., 1908, pp. 35, 67Google Scholar.

^{page 687 note 1} Watters, T., On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India (OTF.), vol. i, p. 203Google Scholar. The word “exactly” is not found in the translations by Julien and Beal; and Dr. Fleet, placing the death of Buddha in 483 b.c. and the beginning of the reign of Kanishka in 58 b.c., has taken the 400 as a statement in round numbers for 425 (compare JRAS., 1906, p. 991). On my view of the matter, the 400 may mean really 400, whether there is or is not anything in the original text to justify the “exactly”, or it may mean a number much closer to 400 than 425 is.

^{page 688 note 1} Watters, T., On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, vol. i, pp. 270–1Google Scholar. The Kashmiri arhat who discovered Pāṇini in his new incarnation 500 years after Buddha's death (Watters, op. cit., i, p. 222) does not necessarily contradict this, although he explains that having once been a bat, and allowed himself benevolently to be burnt to death, he had in a subsequent incarnation attended the great Council. An arhat's longevity is a matter of taste. But it is evident that Hiuen Tsiang dated the conversion of Kanishka, the convocation of the Council, and the reign of Kanishka all in the same year.

^{page 688 note 2} See Kalhaṇa's, remark, RT., bk. i, p. 170 (Stein's trans.)Google Scholar.