^{page 99 note 1} J. Murray, London, 1858.

^{page 99 note 2} Major Hay's extensive collection, formed during many years' residence in the Hill states of the Punjáb, is still in that gentleman's possession. A few of the rare specimens have been secured for our National Museum.

The carefully selected cabinet of Col. J. Abbott, obtained almost in sita during his official superintendence of the Huzárah country, has been temporarily deposited for reference in the British Museum, in the laudable desire of making its contents available for the study of those interested in this branch of Numismatic Science. Among other interesting novelties, Col. Abbott's collection contributes, coin of a new King, named Epandar.

It is a square copper piece, with an obverse device of a figure of Victory, with chaplet and palm branch, to the right, and the legend —

BAΣIΛEΩΣ NIKHΠOPOγ

EΠANΔPου

Reverse—Bull to the right; legend imperfect.

Maharajasa Jayadharasa

(e)padra(sa).

I must not omit to take this opportunity of expressing my obligation to Mr. J. Gibbs, of the Bombay Civil Service, who, amid a very limited number of specimens, has succeeded in securing two of the most important gems of the Bactrian series, the one being, not only unique, but of the utmost value in the new phase it puts upon the collocation of the earlier monarchs, the second which is of but little less interest, being a well executed variant of the original and previously unique coin of M. de Bartholomæi.

^{page 100 note 1} This purpose has been so far modified by the subsequent departure from the original plan of the article, that I now reserve the discussion of the subordinate collateral passages bearing on the three prominent texts quoted in detail, for their possibly more appropriate place in direct connection with the reigns of the different monarchs, as they may severally come under notice in the eventual, though problematical, continuation of the article as it now stands. Equally, the general geographical inquiry will be set aside for examination at the conclusion of the paper, though incidentally the subordinate details may require to be adverted to as occasion arises.

^{page 101 note 1} J.R.A.S. xii, p. 202, “having been ten years inaugurated.”

^{page 101 note 2} Ibid, p. 173, Tablet iii, “twelve years inaugurated;” p. 181, Tablet iv, “in the 12th year of his inauguration.”

^{page 101 note 3} J.R.A.S. xii, p. 249.

^{page 103 note 1} Justin, , “Historiæ” xxvi, c. iiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 103 note 2} Quarterly Review, 1860, p. 218.

^{page 103 note 3} Jour. As. Soc, Bengal, April, 1838.

^{page 103 note 4} While adverting to the subject of Ancient Indian Inscriptions, I am anxious to take the opportunity of noticing a series of translations, submitted to the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, by Dr. Bháu Dájí, an abstract report of which has been received as these sheets are passing through the press. As the paper in question refers to much that has already been the subject of comment in this Journal, and contributes a large amount of new information on a succession of Indian inscriptions, I hare thought it advisable to reprint the notice nearly entire, reserving for a future occasion any of the numerous remarks its text suggests. As I am ordinarily better inclined to respect the philological aptitude of our Eastern fellow-labourers to decipher and translate indigenous inscriptions couched in a tongue so largely infused into the vernaculars of India, than to accept the speculative combinations or suggestive identifications of the Native mind.

August 14, 1862.—Dr. Bháu Dájí then read his translations, 1st of the “Sah” inscription on the Girnar rock in Suráshtra, 2nd of the incription on the northern face of the Girnar rock, and concluded with the following remarks on the Sah, Gupta, and Valabhi dynasties. “The Sah inscription, the revised fac simile and translation of which have this day been submitted to the Society, was deciphered and published by Prinsep in the vii.^th volume of the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, p. 334. Mr. E. Thomas has republished the same in his admirable edition of Prinsep, and has added a revised translation of the record by Professor H. H. Wilson, based on an independent transcript of the original, which Mr. Thomas had prepared with much care from the improved fac-simile of Messrs. Westergaard and Jacob, published in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society for April, 1842.

“Professor Wilson's translation is anything but an improvement.

“The translation of the Sah inscription differs in many important particulars from that of Mr. Prinsep; the name of the lake Sudara'ana occurs at the very commencement, but is not recognized by him. Mr. Prinsep's Aridámá is only a mislection of Rudra Dámá, from the imperfect fac-simile.

“An historical fact of great importance in my translation is, that Rudra Dámá appears to have been a grandson of Swámi Chashtan, and not his son. The inscription contained his father's name, but that part of it is unfortunately completely lost The names of the countries as I read them, over which Rudra Dámá ruled, are also somewhat different The names A'kara and Avantí occur in Padumávi's inscription in one of the Nasik caves. The others need not detain us here.

“The name of the actual builder of the bridge is not the Pahlava Mavya or contractor as rendered by Mr. Prinsep, but the Pahlava Minister of Rudra Dámá, named Suvis'akha, a Sanscrit adaptation, I think, of the Persian name Siavaksha. His father's name, as I make it out, is Kulaipa, and Siavaksha appears to have been the Governor of A'narta and Suráshtra.

“This inscription offers materials for many observations, but I must reluctantly postpone most of them to another opportunity.

“In the second inscription we have the names of Skandagupta and of Parnadatta, and his son Chakrapálita.

“Skandagupta is undoubtedly the monarch whose name has been discovered on coins, on the Bhitári lat, and on the Kuhaon pillar. To-day I have fulfilled the promise I made in my paper on Kalidása of furnishing a translation of the remaining Junagur inscription. Mr. Thomas has remarked that ‘up to this time no more satisfactory account of its purpose and contents can be given than is to be found in the brief notice published by Prinsep in April, 1838 (Prinsep's Indian Antiquities by Thomas, vol. i, page 247).’ All that Mr. Prinsep found was ‘an allusion to Skandagupta, one of the Gupta family, &c.’ It appears that Parnadatta was appointed Governor of Suráshtra, by Skandagupta, and the son of Parnadatta, named Chakrapálita, with two sons were in office, in the same province. The Sudars'ana lake appears to have given way in the 13th year of the Gupta Kála, or Gupta era; it was repaired seven years after, in the 137th year of the Gupta Kála by Chakrapálita, who also erected a temple to Vishnu on the top of the Jayanta hill, or the hill of Girnar, in the 138th year of the Gupta era.

“In my essay on Kalidása I remarked that the Kuhaon pillar inscription is dated ‘in the 141st year of the Gupta dynasty, in the reign of Skandagupta, and not after his decease as deciphered by Prinsep.’ The present inscription leaves no doubt of the correctness of my interpretation, and will enable us to fix the chronology of the Gupta and Valabhi monarchs with some certainty.

“The position of Skandagupta in relation to the Gupta era being now placed beyond doubt, the other dates of Chandragupta, Samudragupta, and Budhagupta, as made out from inscriptions, must now be granted to commence from the Gupta era.

“The dates obtained are Chandragupta Vikramáditya 82 (Udayagiri inscription) and 93 (Sanchi inscription) Skandagupta 141 (in the Kuhaon pillar inscription). Budhagupta 161, in the Bran pillar inscription.

“At the next meeting I shall produce proofs to show that the Valabhi plates are dated in the S'aka Nnpa Kála, and that the symbol which has been hitherto read 300 is really 400.

“Granting these premises, as the Valabhi era is found in Colonel Tod's Somnath inscription to have commenced in AD. 318, Skandgupta must be placed in A.D. 448–459 with a margin of five or ten years on each side

“The Valabhi plates bear dates in my opinion from 410 to 465 S'aka Kála i.e. from A.D. 488 to A.D. 543. The Valabhi dynasty, of which Bhatárka Senápatí was the founder, dates it rise, therefore, shortly after Skandagupta, a fact borne out by a comparison of the alphabetical characters of the monumental records of the Gupta dynasty, and of the copper-plate grants of Valabhi. I may here remark that Dr. Mill's interpretation of Bhitári lat is most defective, and the genealogy of the Valabhi dynasty has not yet been correctly given. I should be thankful to any lover of antiquities for procuring for me a fresh fac-simile of the Bhitari lat inscription.

“The correct genealogy of the Valabhis is, I think, as under:—

“Colonel Cunningham is right in placing the Gupta era in A.D. 318, but in admitting the Guptas noticed by Hiouen-Thsang amongst the successors of Skandagupta he has committed a grave error which has been correctly and fully exposed by Mr. Thomas, who is, however, I think, himself wrong again in placing the Sabs of the coins as early as the second and first century before Christ; and to a brief consideration of this point I shall now proceed.

“On comparing the alphabetical characters of the inscription in the reign of Padumáví, the Andhra King, at Nasik, Karlen, and Kanheri, with those of the Rudra Dámá or Sab. inscription, no doubt the Padumáví inscriptions will appear the older of the two.

“This Padumáví or Puloman was pronounced long ago by Wilford to be identical with Siri Pulomai of Baithan or Paithan on the Godavery, mentioned by Ptolemy Claudius. Professor Lassen has also pointed out the identity. I have a new inscription of Padumáví on a tank on the Nana Ghaut. There is no reason to doubt that Padumáví, the Andhra King, was a contemporary of Ptolemy, and that he flourished about A.D. 120. Ptolemy in noticing Ozene or Ujjayiní, mentions it as the royal residence of another king whom he calls Tiastanus. This Tiastanus is, in my humble opinion, no other than the Swámi Chashtan of our Sah inscription. If we grant that Chashtan was a contemporary of Padumáví and Ptolemy, we can well allow that Chashtan's grandson Rudra Dámá conquered repeatedly (as stated in the inscription) the last of the Andhras; for within 50 years of Padumáví's death, the Andhra dynasty ends, a misfortune no doubt brought about by the rising power and personal qualities of Rudra Dámá. I have already stated that a comparison of the alphabetical character of the inscriptions shows that Rudra Dámá flourished shortly after Padumáví; I have also shown that we must place the rise of the Gupta dynasty in A.D. 818, and as there are cogent reasons for believing that the Guptas succeeded the Sahs, the date of A.D. 200 for Rudra Dámá appears not incompatible. I may here remaŕk that the most distinguished monarch of the S'atkarní or Andhra, dynasty was Gautamiputra, the father of Padumáví. He appears to have extended his conquests over Malwa, Gujarat, Cutch, Akar and all those provinces over which a Kshatrap or Satrap of the Parthian dynasty (Phrahates) ruled immediately before. This I make out from the inscriptions. Gautamiputra is praised for having established the glory of the S'átaváhan family, for having defeated Sakas, Yavanas, and Pahlavas, and for exterminating the descendants of Khagarát (Magadhi), Kshaharáta (Sanskrit), (Phrahates). As Nahapána, the Satrap of Phrahatea judging from the character of the inscriptions, preceded Gautamiputra, and had proceeded on an expedition to Malabar from the North, and through the Deckan, the Andhra princes of Paithan could not have been powerful, and as Gautamiputra appears to have been the bravest and most successful of the whole, I am strongly inclined to look upon him as the founder of the S'áliváhan era.

“I cannot help also pointing out the great similarity of the titles Zathou Korano and Zathou Vahano, to S'átkarní and S'áta Váhana. I am inclined to look upon Kadphises as Sipraka or Sikrapa, the founder of the Andhra dynasty; Krishna, his brother, as Kanerki, and Su-Hermeus his predecessor as Susarman the Kánva. If further analogies were required, I may point out the similarity of Athro to Andhra, and of Ado to Adha, also of Athro Pharo to Andhrabhrit, the former class of words occurring on the coins of Kadphises and Kanerki; the latter in the Puranaa and inscriptions. The title Rao Nana Rao on the coins of Kanerki is more common in the Deckan, the former seat of the Andhras, than in any other part of India. I am also strongly inclined to look upon the name of Nana Ghaut as coming from the goddess Nanaia. It contained in a cave or recess, at its top, images of the founder of the Andhra dynasty; also of the chiefs of the Marathas, of Kumára S'átaváhana, and Kumáro Hakusirí and of another Kumára whose name is lost. Haku may be intended for Hushka. The word Kumáro also occurs in some of the Indo-Scythic coins. These reflections regarding the founder of the Andhra dynasty, I beg to offer more as speculations to direct attention and invite discussion than as the mature results of deep research.”

^{page 107 note 1} J.A.S. B. No. I. 1862, p. 99. Memorandum by Col. A. Cunningham regarding a proposed investigation of the Archæological remains in Upper India.

^{page 107 note 2} Dr. Latham, in his paper on the date and personality of Priyadarsi (vol. xvii, p. 273 of this Journal), has failed to do justice to the assistance we derive from Mr. Nonrris's decipherment of the Kapurdigiri Inscription (J.E.A.S. viii, 303), and, singularly enough, quotes the Bactrian equivalents of the Greek names on the coins, from the “Arinna Antiqua,” which purely tentative readings exhibit only our early want of knowledge of the character, and in no way prove the ignorance or incomplete powet of definition of the local transcribers of ancient days; indeed, since Prof. Wilson has published his parallel transcript and translation of the various rock inscriptions of Asoka, we discover that the Arian versions of the Greek designations are defined with considerable accuracy, and by no means authorise the “latitude” in “identification,” that should make Priyadarsi into Phraates. I need scarcely add that I do not concur in Dr. Latham's theory.

^{page 108 note 1} Babu Rajendra Lal Mitra has lately published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1861 p. 337), a revised transliteration with an original translation of the Bactrian Pálí Inscription on the Wardak vase, from the facsimile lithographed as Plate x. vol. i, Prinsep'B Essays on Indian Antiquities (Murray, J., London, 1858)Google Scholar. The Babu conjectures, with some plausibility, that the name of the Mahárája is Huvishka, who has been identified with Hushka, the King of Kashmír of the Raja Tarangini, the Ooerki, OOHPKI, of the debased Greek numismatic legends (Ariana Antiqua 375), whose name is so frequently associated with that of Kanishka, the Kanerki of the Indo-Scythian Coins. I may add, as a matter of interest connected with monumental records of this age, that an inscription of Hushka, in the square Indian-Pali character, has been lately discovered at Muttra. (See note by Mr. E. C. Bayley, Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, 1861, p. 347).

Professor Dowson has succeeded in mastering the inscription on a steatite funereal vase, preserved in the Pesháwur Museum, which proves to refer to the erection of a tope by the Brothers Gihilena and Siha-rachhitena. And finally Mr. Norris, in concert with Mr. Dowson, is engaged on a most promising Inscription from the neighbourhood of Hussun Abdal, near Ráwul findee, in the Punjáb, regarding which Professor Dowson has obligingly communicated to me the following notice:—

“The plate, which is fourteen inches long by three and-a-half broad, is brokenin the middle, where many of the letters are lost; a connected reading of the whole cannot, therefore, be hoped for. The King's name is Chhatrapa Siliako Kusuluko; these words are followed by nama, so there can be no doubt that they form the name. After the name there are some letters obliterated, and then follow the words Takhasilaye nagare utarena prachu deso, which probably mean “the country north-east of Taxila.” The words Chhatrapa liako are stamped as an endorsement on the back of the plate.” I myself have not had an opportunity of examining this inscription, but 1 should be inclined, as a first conjecture, to identify the Kusuluko with some of the Kozola Kadapes family. The figured date on the plate is XX2333, which is followed by the words Maharayasa maháta, &c. (Prinsep's Essays ii. 202, 203).

^{page 109 note 1} Translation of the Rev. J. S. Watson. Bohn's Edit: London, 1853.

^{page 109 note 2} s Clinton justly remarks,—“The account of Justin is inconsistent with his date. Seleucus, the son of Antiochus Theus, began to reign four years later. But this date is confirmed by Arrian apud Photium, cod. 58, who seems to fix the revolt to the reign of Antiochus. * Eusebius agrees in this date, 01. 132, 3 [B.C. 250] Parthi a Maeedonibus defecerunt: ex iisque unus imperavit Arsaces a quo Arsacidæ * * Suidas ‘Aρσκης Παǫθυαīος &c. * * The 293 years computed from B.C. 538 (the beginning of the reign of Cyrus in the Canon) will give B.O. 245 for the commencement. Strabo, xi, c. ix, 2 * * The establishment was therefore gradual, and might not be completed till the reign of Seleucus. Justin xli, 4, describes the acquisitions of Arsaces as gradual, and adds, c. 5, “quæsito simul constitutoque regno mature senectute decedit.”—Fasti Hellonici, p. 18.

^{page 109 note 3} Clinton Fasti Romani, ii, 243, places Arsaces in B.C. 250. Fasti Hellenic iii, p. 18, “I read in Justin L. Manlio Vulsone C. Atilio Regulo coss—that is, I understand with Valesius ad Ammianum 23, 6, 3, Caius Atilius Regulus L. Manlius Vulso the consuls of B.O. 250, and not L. Manlius Vulso Marcus Atilius Kegulus the consuls of B.C. 256. I prefer the lower date because it is more consistent with Justin himself, who refers the acts of Arsaces to the reign of Seleucus, B.C. 246, and with the dates preserved by other authorities. Eusebius and Suidas, who are quoted in the Tables F. H. iii, p. 18, give B.C. 250 and 246. Moses Chorenensis ii, 1, refers the rise of Arsaces to the 11th year of Antiochus Theus: undecimo ejus anno a Macedonum jugo Parthi defecere, that is in B.C. 251; or 60 years after the era of the Seleucidre began: ii, 2, post sexaginta annos quam Alexander mortuus est, Parthis imperitavit Arsaces. But the 60th year of that era (which is here meant) was completed in autumn, B.C, 252. These dates also more nearly agree with the later date, B.C. 250.”

Mr. J. Lindsay, the latest writer on Parthian Numismatics, places the revolt of the Parthians in 255 B.C.; but as he does not notice Clinton's emendation of the consular date, or enter upon any discussion of the subject, I presume he accepted the ordinarily received epoch without question. “Coinage of the Parthians,” Cork, 1852. The author of the article, “Arsaces,” in Smith's, Dictionary (London, 1814)Google Scholar, who seems to have examined the various authorities with unusual care, gives the preference to the date of 250 B.C.

^{page 110 note 1} M. de Bartholomaei, in his “Résponse a Mr. Droysen,” incidentally offers some valuable criticisms on this statement of Justin:—

“Nous feronsobserver encore, que le témoignage de Justin sur les premiers Areacides est assez conforme à celui qui nous ocoupe dans ce moment. On le trouve dans le meme livre. Justin, après avoir fait des deux premiere roia Parthes un seul Arsace, dit de ce roi: ‘Cujus memoriæ hunc honorem Parthi tribuerunt ut omnes exinde reges suos Arsacis nomine nuncupent. Hujus filius et successor regni Arsaces et ipse nomine * * Il s'agit cepeudant du troiBieme roi Parthe que nous trouvons dans un auteur bien plus digne de foi, sous le nom d'Artaban, et ce dernier nom, ainsi que celui du second roi (Tiridate) a été omis par Justin. Cette double omission ne peut être motivée par la seul raison que tous les rois s'appelaient Arsace, car dans ce cas ce nom répété ne gignifierait rien; ou bien, si l'antenr avait voulu I'appliquer à tous lea rois, il aurait également suffi an 4me dont Justin fait le 3me; (tertiua Farthorum rex Priapatius fuit, sed et ipse Arsaces) or Justin s'exprimant de la même manière sur'le nom du fils de Diodote que sur celui dn fils d'Arsace, a bien pu commettre le mfime genre d'erreur pour tous les deux. * * * * “Mais Jnstin confond qoelquefois lea faits, et encore plus sonvent les noms; et comme cette fois il n'est appuyé par aucun autre autenr, son témoignage concernant le nom du fils et successeur de Diodote, n'est pas d'un bien grand poids.” 134.

^{page 111 note 1} Delph. Note, B.O. 182.

^{page 112 note 1} Translation by W. Falconer.—Bohn's Edit., London, 1856.

^{page 112 note 2} Adopting Tyrwhitt's conjecture. W.F.

^{page 112 note 3} Strabo xi. s. iv. French translation by MM. De la Porte du Theïl, Coray, and Gosselin. Paris, 1805. Vol. iv. p. 272.

Il se fut èlevè de grands troubles dans les pays D'AU DELÀ du Taurus; on vit d'abord les officiers auxquels étoit confié le gouvernement de la Bactriane, se soustraire à leur autorité; et Euthydémus se rendit maltre de ce qui avoisinoit cette province. Ensuite Arsacès, Scythe d'origne, &c.

^{page 112 note 4} Elsewhere [ix, 3] Strabo says,—“according to others he was a Bactrian, and, withdrawing himself from the increasing power of Diodotus, occasioned the revolt of Parthia.”

^{page 112 note a} On vit d'abord, &c. Je crois avoir rendu assez littéralement le grec:— Πǫτον μɛν τν Bκτǫιανν πστησν ο πɛπιστɛυμνοι, κα τνγγὺςαὐς πσαν οι πɛǫ Eὐθδημον. Mais cette phrase obscure donne matière à beaucoup de difflcultés historiques et chronologiques. Pour les exposer toutes, fut-ce de la manière la plus simple, il faudroit une note extrêmement longue; et je ne tenterai point de les résoudre, quand, á plusieurs reprises, de savans hommes l'ont vainement essayé. Seulement dirai-je que, d'après un autre passage (cap. xiv.) on pourroit croire qu'ici les mots, κα τν γγὺς αὐτς πσαν οἱ πɛρ Eὐθδημον, annoncant des faits postérieurs à la première défection des satrapes de la Bactriane, et même à la révolte d'Arsacès I dans la Parthyrea, doivent être regardés comme une espèce de parenthèse. Clinton, in referring to the same passage, remarks, “Strabo makes the revolt of Bactria precede the rise of the Parthians. But he speaks without precision, for we know from Polybius that Euthydemus was contemporary with Antiochus; and, according to Strabo himself, the founder of the Bactrian kingdom was Diodotus.” F.H. app. 315.

^{page 112 note b} Conf. Palmer Exercitat. &c, p. 332. Vaillant, Arsacid. imp. &c. tom. 1, p.l, et seq. Longuer, Annal. Arsacid, p. 1, et seq. Bayer, Hist. regn. Græc. Bactrian. s. 15, et seq. p. 32, et seq. Ed. Corsin de Minnis. aliorumque, &c., a. 2, p. 31. Froelich, Dub. de Minnis, 4c, p. 35. Sainte-Croix, Mem. sur le gouv. des Parthes, Acad. des Inscr. et B. L. vol. L. Mém. p. 49 et 53.

^{page 113 note 1} Strabo speaking of the difficulty of obtaining trustworthy information regarding these distant countries elsewhere [xv. 2, 3] remarks: “Apollodorus, for instance, author of the Parthian History, when he mentions the Greeks who occasioned the revolt of Bactriana from the Syrian kings, who were the successors of Seleucus Nicator, says, that when they became powerful they invaded India. He adds no discoveries to what was previously known; and even asserts, in contradiction to others, that the Bactrians had subjected to their dominion a larger portion of India than the Macedonians; for Eucratidas (one of these kings) had a thousand cities subject to his authority. But other writers affirm that the Macedonians conquered nine nations, situated between the Hydagpes and the Hypanis, and obtained possession of 500 cities, not one of which was less than Cos Meropis, and that Alexander, after having conquered all this country, delivered it up to Porus.”

^{page 113 note 2} Ptolemy vii, 1, 46. Σγαλα κα Eὐθυδμα. M. P. Vivien de Saint-Martin identifies this city with the modern Amritsir. “Etude sur la géographic grecque et latine de 1'Inde.” Paris, 1868Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 3} From Hampton's Polybius.

^{page 114 note 1} As this passage has an important bearing on certain arguments I have yet to develope, I transcribe the original text:—Kα γρ αὐτς ἧν Eὑθδημος Mγνης' πρς ὃν πɛλογξɛτο φπκων, ὠς οὐ δικως αὐτν 'Aντοχος κ τς βασιλɛας κβαλɛῑν σποδξɛι' γɛγονναι γρ οὐκ αὐτς ποσττης το βασιλως, γγ', τρων ποcτνων, πανɛλμɛνος τοὺς κɛνων κɛνων κγνους οὓτω κǫατσαι τς, Bακτριανν ρχς. Polyb. xi, e. 34.—See also Bayer, p. 67, and a note on κγνονς, in Ariana Antiqua, p. 218.

^{page 115 note 1} Latin Translation – Plutarchi opera, vol. 4, p. 821.—“At Menandri cujusdam, qui apud Bactra regnum moderatè gesserat, in castris mortui civitates funus cùm pro consuetudine procurassent, de reliquiis in certamen pei venerunt, ægréque pax hac conditione coiit, ut singular parte cinerum ablata eequali, monimentum ei viro apud se quseque ponerent.”—Hudson, edit. p. 27.

^{page 115 note 2} Note on Topes, Prinsep's Essays, 1.165.

^{page 115 note 3} Latin Translation.—Alexander ex his (Bactriorum) regionibus profectus, usque ad Gangem descendit, relinquens a latere Limyricam et australia Indies: quamobrem usque ad hodiernum diem in Barygazis veteres commeant drachmæ literis Græcis inseriptæ, titulo eorum, qui post Alexandrum reqnarunt, Apollodoti et Menandri: est etiam ilia in regione ad orientem nrbs dicta Ozene, in qua olim regia erat.—Vincent, Commerce of the Ancients, ii. 204; Wilson, AA. 348; J.R.A.S. xii. 46.

^{page 116 note 1} Parthorum primi tumultus et prima eorum epocha, 250 B.C. Altera epocha Parthici regni, 247, B.C. Arsaces Hyrcaniam occupat, 244 B.C. Arsaces contra Theodotum regem bellum parat.

^{page 117 note 1} The following is a summary of the more prominent contributions to Bactrian Numismatics prior to 1840:—

1. Köhler, Médailles greques de Bois de la Bactriane, du Bosphore. St. Petersburg, 1822; Supplément, 1823.

2. Tychsen, Comentt. Becentt. Göttingg. v., vi.

3. Schlegel, Journal Asiatique, 1828.

4. James Priosep, Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1833 to 1838. Reprinted in the edition of his Essays, London, 1858.

5. Raoul Rochette, Journal des Savants, 1834 to 1839, and 1844.

6. K. O. Möller, Göttingen Anzeigen, 1835 (No. 177), 1838 (No. 21).

7. Mionnet, Suppt. viii. 1837.

8. Lassen, , ‘Zur Geschichte der Griechischen und Indoskythischen Könige.’ Bonn, 1838Google Scholar. Kepublished in the Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, 1840.

9. Grotefend Die Münzen der Könige yon Bactrien. Hanover, 1839.

I am not aware that any of the above works require especial notice. The value and importance of James Prinsep's labours in the cause of Oriental Numismatics and Palaeography are, I trust, sufficiently appreciated by the ordinary readers of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. It may be necessary, however, that I should advert briefly to M. Raoul Rochette's series of Essays in the Journal des Savants, which are not so readily accessible to English students. The antiquarian and purely numismatic portion of these are fully worthy of M. R. Rochette's deservedly high reputation; but the general consistency of his classification is sadly damaged by an eccentric theory, perseveringly adhered to, regarding the origination of the Bactrian Dynasty, which he attributes to the Agathocles, (elsewhere called Phericles; Arrian apud Photium, lviii.), mentioned by Syncellus as the Governor of Persia, on the part of Antiochus ii., and who M. Rochette identifies with the Agathoeles of the coins, completing the association by supposing him to have been the father and grandfather respectively of Diodotus I and Diodotus II. (J. des Sav. 1835, p. 593; 1836 p. 75).

^{page 120 note 1} Lassen had originally adopted the date 256 B.C. “Zur Geschichle, &c, 1838.”

^{page 123 note 1} First published in 1843, by the owner, in Köhnes Zeitschrift, p. 67, pl. iii, fig. 2.

^{page 123 note 2} An engraving of this cast may be seen in the “Numismatic Chronicle,” fig. 7, plate iv, vol. ii, N.S. It may be necessary to explain how and why I venture to recognise and claim credence for a cast coin, that is, in effect, for a forgery. But the truth is, the not very discriminating demand by Europeans for Bactrian coins has, for long time past, stimulated the native goldsmiths and other cunning craftsmen of the Punjáb to fabricate copies of the ancient Greek originals; this is usually effected with considerable skill by a casting of silver, more or less debased, in ordinary clay moulds, produced from direct impressions of the medal to be imitated. So that the intentional forgery simply constitutes for those who would use it as an aid to history, a very close reproduction of a genuine model. The most frequent practice is to cast in silver, and, on rare occasions in gold, counterparts of the true copper coins; as the more precious metal is more suitable for the purpose, and when turned out meets with a readier sale, at prices far higher in proportion than specimens of the lower currency. This prevailing usage does not, however, debar the fac-simile reproduction of the more rare silver coins, as may be seen in the present example. Indeed, within my own limited experience, I have had occasion to examine a collection made by an Officer of H.M.S. at Pesháwur, in which were detected an absolute handful of silver casts, of various degrees of merit, all taken from one exquisite original of Agathocles' Panther type of money, which had, itself, without the purchaser's suspicion of its comparative value, found its way into a reassociation with its own family. But while pleading for the utility of bonâ-fide casts, which in some cases almost approach the accuracy of electrotypes, I must add, for the credit of Bactrian Numismatics, that no collector of ordinary acuteness need fear to be deceived by modern forgeries properly so called, that is, where dies have been cut for the purpose of producing new coins. Here Oriental aptitude is altogether at fault, the Eastern eye of the present day is unable to realize, equally as the hand is incapable of executing a semblance of Greek art.

^{page 124 note 1} Tetradrachmas, pl. xiii, fig. 3. Prinsep's Essays. Pl. vi, fig. 3 Ariana Antiqua. Pl. ii, fig 1. Journal des Savants, 1836. Pl. lxxiv, fig. 8. Trésor de Numismatique. Drachmas, J. des Sav. June, 1834, fig. 2.—A. A. vi, 4.

^{page 124 note 2} Jour, des Sav. 1834, plate, fig. 1. A. A. vi, 5, 6, T. de N. lxxiv, 2. Numismatic Journal, vii, pi. iii, fig. 30.

^{page 124 note 3} See Prinsep's Essays, vol. i, page 220.

^{page 124 note 4} J. des Sav. 1835, pl. i, fig. 1. A. A. vi, figs. 7, 8, 9.

^{page 125 note 1} See Prinsep, pl. xxviii., fig. 8.

A. A.—pl. vi., fig. 11.

^{page 126 note 1} In this number I include Apoilodotus, rejecting all belief in any 2nd Eucratides.

^{page 126 note 2} M. R. Rochette graphically illustrates his own sense of this difficulty:— “Aux princes qui semblaient déjà trop nombreux pour l'étroit espace de temps et de lieux dans lequel ils se trouvaient pressés, sont venus se joindre une foule de rois nouveaux, qu'il faut admettre dans ce même espace et qui redoublent notre embarras, en même temps qu'ils augmentent notre intérêt. Par cette apparition inattendue de règnes dont il n'existe d' autres tèmoignages que ces monuments mêmes, plus d'un système de classification se trouve détruit, plus d'une conjecture, rejetée d'abord, se trouve justifiée; et I'histoire a pris, sur beaucoup de points, une face nouvelle, grâce à ces médailles, seuls débris qui nous restent de la puissance de rois qui étendirent leur domination sur une partie considérable des countrées situées au sud et au nord du Caucase indien et des deux côtés de 1' Indus.” J. de Sav. 1844, p. 109.

^{page 126 note 3} On its first publication in 1843, M. de Bartholomæi interpreted the combination of the types and legends of coin No. 3, as implying its issue by Agathocles after the decease of Diodotus, in posthumous honour of the latter as the founder of the Bactrian monarchy. This attribution was adopted in its leading features by M. R. Rochette, in his concluding Essay in the Jour, des Sav. (1844, p. 117.)

The assignment was, however, contested by Droysen (Gesehichte des Hellenismus, Hamburg, 1843) who held, as must now be admitted, with better reason—that the relationship between the two monarchs, indicated by the medal, could only be that of contemporaneous subordination on the part of Agathocles. This new theory elicited an elaborate reply from M. de Bartholomæi (Zeitschrift fur Münz, 1846), which, however clever in argument, failed altogether to show that the change from the title of BAΣIΛEγΣ to that of ΣΩTHP, in connexion with the name of Diodotus, necessitated the inference that he had then ceased to live.

Lassen in reviewing the various possible bearings of this piece in a somewhat involved manner, leaves the real question at issue, nearly as undecided as ever— inter alia “he remarks the relation of Agathocles to Diodotus I. is shown in the binominal coin. The title of Deliverer denotes the latter as a liberator of the land from foreign domination, and the absence of the title of king either shews that he no longer reigned, as M. R. Rochette supposes, or more probably, that he was no longer acknowledged as a king by Agathocles, when this coin was struck. The repetition of the Jove type on the reverse proves that Agathocles, if not Diodotus' ally, was at all events, his contemporary, and that he reigned at the same time with or shortly after him.” After referring to the use of the word BAΣIΛEγONTOΣ as opposed to the ordinary title of BAΣIΛEγΣ. Prof. Lassen proceeds to add, “its meaning could only be this, that Agathocles practically possessed royal power, and used it, but that he acknowledged Diodotus as standing in a higher position, although he (even then) entertained the idea of making himself independent. * * If this supposition be correct, Agathocles was first Governor of one of the provinces of the Bactrian kingdom, and became independent, while the rule of Diodotus still existed.” Indische Alterthumskunde, 1847.

^{page 127 note 1} It will be remarked that in each case the subordinate kings make use of the reverse device of the Suzerain in supersession of the emblems peculiar to their own local coins.

^{page 128 note 1} I do not wish to press an unnecessary argument into the service of a theory already sufficiently complete in itself, otherwise it might be suggested that Justin had imperfectly reproduced the sense of Trogus Pompeius, in the following passage, and that “totius Orientis populi” was primarily designed to refer to the associates of Diodotus.

xli. 5. Eodem tempore etiam Theodotus, mille urbium Bactrianarum præfectus, defecit, regemque se appellari jussit: quod exemplum secuti totiua Orientis populi a Maoedonibus defecere. 6. Brat eo tempore Araaces, vir, sicut incertæ originis, ita virtntis expertæ, &c.

^{page 129 note 1} The Parthian system was specially one of local kings, under an imperial chief, hence the term under which administration, subdivision was carried to such an extent, that, as Tabari tells us, in every city there was a “king” The semitic Malkín Malká of the Western coins (Num. Chron. xii, 68), equally with the unique association of “Satrap of Satraps,” embodies the same idea. (Jour. Boyal Asiatic Soc. xi., 118. Sir H. Rawlinson's note on the inscription of Gotarges, at Behistun.)

^{page 129 note 2} It is not quite clear to what period Strabo alludes in this sentence. The context would seem to imply a reference to a state of things existing after the Bactrian revolt; but, however, this may be, it will be sufficient for the exemplification of the political organization of these provinces to go back to the subdivision already effected at the death of Alexander the Great, and which was probably extended into far greater detail in the interval between 323 B.C. and 250 B.C. “In Ulterior Bactriana, and the countries of India, the present Governors were allowed to retain their office. The region between the rivers Hydaspes and Indus, Taxiles received. To the colonies settled in India, Python, the son of Agenor, was sent. Of Paropamisia, and the borders of Mount Caucasus, Extarches had the command. The Arachosians and Gedrosians were assigned to Sibyrtius; the Drancæ and Arci to Stasanor. Amyntas was allotted the Bactrians, Scythæus the Sogdians, Nicanor the Parthians, Philippus the Hyrcanians. * * * When this allotment, like a gift from the fates, was made to each, it was to many of them a great occasion for improving their fortunes; for not long after, as if they had divided kingdoms, not governments, among themselves, they became princes instead of prefects, and not only secured great power to themselves, but bequeathed it to their descendants.” Justin, xiii., 4. See also Arrian, in Photius, ix., xcii. 2 Curtius, x. Diod. Sec. xviii. Dexippns, in Photius, lxxxii. Orosius, iii.

^{page 130 note 1} Mr. Masson, so early as the year 1836 (J.A.S.B. v. 545), stated his impression that the monograms on Baetrian Coins, “might be presumed to be monograms of locality,” an opinion concurred in by Professor H. H. Wilson, who speaks of these mint-marks as “denoting probably the places where [the pieces] were coined” (Ariana Antiqua, p. 223). It was reserved, however, for Colonel A. Cunningham, to make the first real effort to analyze and explain the purport of these combinations. The results of his investigations were published in the viii.^th volume of the Numismatic Chronicle (1843)—under the title of “An Attempt to Explain some of the Monograms found upon the Grecian Coins of Ariana and India.” In this paper, Colonel Cunningham has given a table of no less than sixty different monograms, specifying in a comprehensive form the various kings upon whose coins the several symbols occur, and giving suggestive explanations of the reading and identification of nearly two-thirds of the entire number.

^{page 131 note 1} Arsaces iv. Mithridates I.

^{page 131 note 2} As this paper may eventually remain incomplete, it may be as well that I should indicate in this place, subject to the test of a more extended comparison, such interpretations of the monograms already quoted aa seem reasonably encouraging.

The monogram No. 1 , which occurs on the coins of Diodotus, and subsequently on those of Euthydemus, has been read by Colonel Cunningham as TAγKIANA, which he proposed to amend into TAΛIKANA, Tálikán, and further to associate with the Tapauria of Polybius (Taguria, p. 114, supra). I confess to a distrust in any such an elaborate sequence of identifications, and should prefer some more simple lection, such as NIKAIA. It may elucidate the ultimate determination of this monogram to refer No. 7a, which, when viewed from the right hand side of the coin, is found to present a form absolutely identical with No. 1.

No. 2a, had been originally resolved by Colonel Cunningham into the name of MAPΓIANH, an attribution which seemed strengthened by the discovery of a variant of the same monogram, having an additional at the top (No. 2 ), in this case, however, the Γ already existing in the compound became superfluous, a fact which may possibly be explained by supposing that the upper line of the square of the monogram was intended to form a portion of the letter Π, representing the initial letter of Πöλιç.

Of the monograms of Agathocles, No. 6 = AP., seems to stand for the metropolitan city of the province of Arachosia, which, as in the parallel cases of ΔP and XOP denoting severally the capitals of Drangia and Chorasmia, referred rather to the name of the kingdom than to the designation of the specific capital.

No. 4 has been supposed to symbolize the name of OΦIANH, but the cross line forming a T in the centre of the O, rather damages this assignment.

No. 4 (See Plate ii., coin 2) gives, with singular completeness, the forms of every letter in the word ΔΙΟΔΟΤΟΠΟΛΙΣ, which may be taken to represent some city temporarily named after Diodotus, in accord with the frequent custom of the times.

The isolated letters ΦΙ on the copper coins may possibly instruct us rightly in the initial rendering of the monogram No. 5, seen on the binominal medal of Euthydemus (Pl. ii., fig 3), which continues its combination into a third character A, with the optional letters O, and P.

The mint marks of Antimachus Theos commence with the new monogram AN, which may be taken to indicate either a town named after Antiochus, or a more newly designated city called after Antimachus himself. No. 8a seems to answer fairly for Kαρτανα, and I should likewise be disposed to concur in Colonel Cunningham's interpretation of No. 27, as Διονυσóπολιç if it should hereafter stand the trial of association of localities.

^{page 132 note 1} Étude sur la géographic greeque et latine de l'Inde. Paris, 1858.

^{page 132 note 2} Paris, 1859.