^{page 1013 note 1} In the next, or next but one, number of this Journal.

^{page 1013 note 2} It is usual to follow Professor Bühler in using the form ‘Kharōshṭhī.’ But it is by no means certain that M. Sylvain Lévi is not right in holding that the real name of these characters is ‘KharōshǦDr;rī.’

^{page 1014 note 1} The text says:—apratiṭhavita ……śariraṁ [pra]titha[vē]ti; “he establishes an unestablished relic.” Professor Bühler considered that the term “apratiṭhavita, ‘not established,’ probably is meant to indicate that this particular ”relic had not been worshipped formerly, but had been newly discovered.” That is not, however, the meaning that presents itself to me.

^{page 1014 note 2} This word stands at the place where the plate is broken down the middle. The following observations must be made regarding the reading of it.

The recognition of the word as panēmasa was made by Professor Dowson, and has been always followed, with one exception. Mitra, Babu Rajendralala proposed (JASB, 32, 1863. 153) to read panchmnasa (sic), ‘of the fifth:’ this we need not discuss.Google Scholar

ProfessorDowson, presented pashemasa in his text (this Journal, 1863. 222).Google Scholar but observed (ibid., 224):—“The first [of the letters] may be p, k, or bh, and “the second seems to be she⃜… The initial letter seems to be preferably “p, and it is easy to perceive how the letter ne might come to look like she, ” where the plate is so eaten away and corroded.” He assumed that the word is panemasa, because the names of other Macedonian months had been found in records of the same class.

Professor Bühler gave pa. emasa, from the original plate, and said:—“Restore “panemasa with Professor Dowson; only part of the vowel and of the head of “the consonant has been preserved: ” see EI, 4. 55, and note 6.

The lithographs in JASB, 31, 1862. 532;Google Scholar this Journal, 1863. 222;Google Scholar ASI, 2. 125, present the appearance of the top part of sh, with or without a superscript e. But they are in no sense facsimiles. The original record was incised in dots (see the facsimile published with Professor Bühler's article), in the place of which those illustrations give continuous strokes.

I have closely examined the original plate, which is in the Library of the Royal Asiatic Society. In the first syllable we certainly have either a p or the remains of a k. Of the next syllable so little remains that it is quite undeterminable. But, in a good light, the following masa, and the initial ma of the next word masasa, are unmistakable. Having regard to the points, that at least two other Macedonian months, Artemisios and Daisios, are certainly mentioned in the records, and that no other admissible reading can be found, there can be no doubt that the original here had panēmasa.

^{page 1014 note 3} There is no authority for supplying in the translation any such words as “in the reign” (of Moga); nor any necessity to do so. The word mogasa is dependent, neither on rajaṁmi, ‘in the reign,’ understood, nor on saṁvachharayē,— (the passage has been translated on both those lines),— but on panēmasa masasa.

^{page 1017 note 1} I may be excused, I think, for substituting, here and anywhere else, the form Sök for any other forms used by writers whom I may quote: see DrFranke's, O. note on “The Identity of the Sök with the Śakas ” (page 675 ff. above).Google Scholar

^{page 1021 note 1} There might also be the possibility that the name should be completed into Moṇga, by supplying an Anusvāra. But it is rendered very doubtful, if it is not actually negatived, by the fact that the Anusvāra is distinctly expressed, almost in every case in which it is required, throughout the record.

^{page 1023 note 1} See my article “Sāgala, Śākala, the City of Milinda and Mihirakula” in the Transactions of the Fourteenth Oriental Congress, Algiers, 1905, part 1, Indian Section, page 164 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 1024 note 1} See the note on page 1021 above.

^{page 1024 note 2} On previous occasions, following Indraji, Pandit Bhagwanlal (this Journal, 1894. 532),Google Scholar I have been writing this name as Rājuvūla. But I notice that Professor Bühler, while writing the name as Rājuvula, with a short u in both syllables (EI, 4. 55: Indian Paleography, § 19, A), has entered the second syllable of it as jū in his plate iii, 13, ii. And, examining the lithograph again, and comparing other early records, I think that we must take the name as Rājūvula, with the long ū in the second syllable and the short u in the third; rejecting as part of the record the somewhat detached stroke in the lithograph on the right of the vowel of the third syllable. It need hardly be said that the fact that the legends on the Brāhmī coins (see page 1026 below) present the name as Rājuvula, with a short u in both syllables, does not preclude us from finding a long ū in either syllable in an inscription, and from accepting it as giving the more correct form. The Kharōshṭhī legends of course shew only the short u.

^{page 1025 note 1} ProfessorBühler, originally read the date as “the year 42, or perhaps 72” (Academy, April, 1891. 374).Google Scholar General Sir Alexander Cunningham said that he read it, without hesitation, as “72 and not 42” (ibid., 397). Professor Bühler presented it as “42 (?)” in his published text and translation (EI, 2. 199). He subsequently endorsed the correction into 72 (EI, 4. 55, and note 2).

^{page 1025 note 2} In respect of the dialect, an instructive detail is the form bhakavata = bhagavataḥ in the inscription A, line 12. The k for g is a Paiśāchī feature: see Vararuchi, 10. 3.

^{page 1025 note 3} The construction of this record is not exactly confused, but is open to a charge of ambiguity. Professor Bühler understood it in such a way as to make Nadasi-Kasa, mother of Kharaosta, the wife of Rajula (this Journal, 1894. 531).Google Scholar Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji understood it as making her a daughter of Rajula (ibid., 546). I agree with the latter.

^{page 1026 note 1} The photograph of the record, which I have before me, is somewhat suggestive that we should take Kusulua, with u, not a, in the third syllable. However, I follow for the present Bhagwanlal Indraji and Bühler in that detail.

As regards another detail, it would seem that Mr. F. W. Thomas, who has been engaged for some years on an exhaustive study of the records on the Mathurā, lion-capital,— (he has given us one result in his elucidative article entitled “Sakastana,” published in this Journal, 1906. 181 ff.),— prefers to read the proper name (here, at least; and, I, presume, in also the Taxila record) as Padika, with d instead of t (see, e.g., loc. cit., 213). I shall be quite ready to take overthat form when it is established: meanwhile, I follow the form given by the previous decipherers.Google Scholar

^{page 1026 note 2} For illustrations, see JASB, 7, 1838. 1050,Google Scholar plate 32, fig. 20 (= Prinsep's Essays, 2. 223, plate 44, fig. 20); Cunningham, , Coins of Ancient India, plate 8, fig. 4;Google ScholarIndraji, Bhagwanlal, in this Journal, 1894. 541,Google Scholar plate, fig. 4; and Rapson, , Indian Coins, plate 2, fig. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 1026 note 3} Following Cunningham, (loc. cit. in the preceding note, and Coins of the Sakas, 70, No. 15),Google Scholar Rapson has transcribed the legend so as to present b in the third syllable,—Rājubulasa. But the illustrations in C.CAI, and R.IC, and this Journal, 1894 (see the preceding, note), distinctly shew v.

^{page 1027 note 1} For illustrations, see JASB, 23, 1854. 688, plate 35, figs. 5, 6, 7;Google ScholarVon Sallet, , Die Nachfolger Alexanders des Grossen, plate 5, fig. 3;Google Scholar Gardner, Catalogue, plate 15, figs. 11, 12; Cunningham, , Coins of the Sakas, plate 12, figs. 12, 13,Google Scholar and Coins of Ancient India, plate 8, figs. 2, 3; Indraji, Bhagwanlal, in this Journal, 1894. 541, plate, figs. 2, 3;Google Scholar and Rapson, , Indian Coins, plate 2, fig. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 1027 note 2} There is something of the same kind on some of the Parthian coins, where Mr. Wroth has told us, an i— (or an apparent i)— does duty at times for a, e, s, r, and u: see his Catalogue of the Coins of Parthia, introd., 77.

^{page 1027 note 3} See JASB, 23, 1854. 690; ASI, 3. 41;Google ScholarCoins of Ancient India, 86.Google Scholar

^{page 1027 note 4} The name has always been transcribed from these legends with b in the third syllable. There is, perhaps, no reason why the v of the Brāhmī legends should not have passed into b in the dialect of the Kharōshṭhī legends. At the same time, there is no particular reason why that should have happened; and the hand-drawn illustrations by Cunningham, in JASB, 23, 1854. plate 35, figs. 5, 6, 7, distinctly suggest v, not b, and the coins themselves in the British Museum, which I have examined, do the same.Google Scholar

Some of the legends in Kharōshṭhī characters have been understood to present the first syllable of the name as raṁ. And, in addition to Cunningham's original Rājabāla (with the variants Rajabala, Rājābāl), to which he subsequently added Rajubul, Rājubul, Rājubula, Ranjabula, and Ranjubul, the name has been written indifferently, by various writers, as Rajabula, Rajubula, Rajuvula, Rājabula, Rājuvula, Rājuvūla, Raṁjabula, Raṁjubula, Ranjabala, and Rañjubula.

A coin in the British Museum—(perhaps the only one which shews the first syllable fully, or at any rate clearly)— certainly shews below the vertical stem of the r a curved stroke to the left, which might mean an Anusvāra if an Anusvāra were required. It can at least not mean a longa ā. And in the face of the distinct rā, with no Anusvāra, of the Mōra inscription and the Brāhmī coin-legends, we must, in my opinion, regard this stroke as not denoting even an Anusvāra, but as being only the meaningless bend to the left which Professor Rapson has commented on and illustrated in his article on Kharōshṭhī documents in the Transactions of the Fourteenth Oriental Congress, Algiers, 1905, part 1, Indian Section, page 210 ff.: see page 219, bottom, and the table on page 213, which shews this stroke in the b of bahu, the g of gachhishyati, and the y of yajēsi.

^{page 1028 note 1} For illustrations, see JASB, 7, 1888. 1050, plate 32, fig. 21 ( = Prinsep's Essays, 2. 223, plate 44, fig. 21);Google ScholarCunningham, , Coins of the Sakas, plate 12, fig. 16, and Coins of Ancient India, plate 8, fig. 5;Google ScholarIndraji, Bhagwanlal, in this Journal, 1894. 541, plate, figs. 5 and 6;Google ScholarRapson, , in this Journal, 1903. 312, plate, fig. i; and V. Smith, Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, 1. 192, plate 22, fig. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 1028 note 2} Regarding certain details,— tra, not ta; and śō, not śu or śau,— see ProfessorRapson, in this Journal, 1903. 289, note 3.Google Scholar

^{page 1029 note 1} For other illustrations, see Gardner, plate 23, fig. 6; Cunningham, , Coins of the Sakas, plate 12, figs. 9, 10, 11;Google Scholar and Indraji, Bhagwanial, this Journal, 1894. 541, plate, figs. 16, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 1029 note 2} The epsilon, omikron, and sigma have certainly the rectangular forms. I agree with Rapson in taking the omega as Ш, not ω with Cunningham in considering that the alpha is not A

The fifth letter is distinctly not M but H with the value of h. I may note that Cunningham, while shewing it in one place as M (op. cit., 25), shewed it in the other place as H even while still treating it there as M (op. cit., 68).

^{page 1031 note 1} Sir A. Cunningham seems to have thus started this interpretation of the inscription P; in print, at any rate.

On the same occasion he said (loc. cit., 21), with reference to the inscription R:— Koḍinasa tachhilasa, that “the name of the city of Taxila is also found on “the capital. At this time, therefore, the Indian territory of the Sakas must “have extended from the Indus to Mathura, and from Kashmir to Sindh.” And that view, also, was endorsed when the record was edited (this Journal, 1894. 540). But can any instance be cited, of the name Takshaśilā, Takshaśilā, Takhasilā, Takkasilā, being; contracted into a form Takshilā, from which we might have tākshila, and then tachhila, ‘belonging to Taxila’? At the bottom of koḍinasa we may have a clan-name quite as well as a personal name. And it is quite possible that the words of the inscription R. are a subordinate clause of one of the other records, and that at the bottom of tachhilasa we have tachchhīla, ‘accustomed to that, similar, having that character or disposition.’Google Scholar

^{page 1032 note 1} Or, is this indication of opinion to be attributed to Professor Bühler? The article is edited in such a manner as to make it difficult to know exactly which parts of it belong to Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji, and which to his editor.

^{page 1034 note 1} Mr. Smith would now have us understand, at any rate in connexion with Kanishka, that his determination of dates by means of “the Laukika era” is only “a minor matter” (see, e.g., his Early History of India, 220,Google Scholar note; ZDMG, 1907. 406, note).Google Scholar That is hardly in consonance with the flourish with which the supposed discovery was announced (this Journal, 1902. 175),Google Scholar—[it was not a new idea even then; it had been suggested by Mr. Growse a quarter of a century earlier, IA, 6. 218 f.],— and with the elaborate manner in which it was worked out (this Journal, 1903.1–64).Google Scholar And the position is this: Mr. Smith used his supposed discovery to obtain definite dates for the records which mention Kanishka and his immediate successors [see,.e.g., this Journal, 1903. 61,Google Scholar where he put forward A.D. 129 as the “earliest known date (year 5=3205 Laukika) of Kaniṣka,” and placed the accession of that king about A.D. 125]; but, while still placing the accession of Kanishka “in or about 120 or 125 A.D.” (Early History of India, 226), he would now treat as quite a secondary consideration, if not actually as non-existent, the means which led him to that result.Google Scholar

^{page 1036 note 1} For some previous remarks by me on this era, see this Journal, 1903. 334; 1905. 232 ff.; and page 169 ff above.Google Scholar

The era is cited sometimes as the era of B.C. 57; sometimes even as the era of B.C. 56. The position in respect of this point is as follows.

The calculations of many dates shew that the first current year of the era, as we have it now, began with the day Kārttika śukla 1 in B.C. 58, and ended with the day before that day in B.C. 57. There is no essential objection to calling it the era of B.C. 57, if, according to the very general, but not universal, Hindū custom of citing expired years, we regard its numerical reckoning as running from the commencement of its first year as an expired year; that is, in reality, from the commencement of its second current year. And in the same way we may call the Kaliyuga era, the first year of which began in B.C. 3102 and ended in 3101, the era of B.C. 3101. But, in that case, we must call the Śaka era, the first year of which began in A.D. 78 and ended in 79, the era of A.D. 79: we must do that in order to maintain the difference of exactly 135 years between the commencement of the Vikrama and Śaka eras, and of 3044 and 3179 years between the commencement of the Kaliyuga and of the Vikrama and Śaka eras,—all regarded for this purpose as commencing either with the vernal equinox or with Chaitra śukla 1. As, however, it has become habitual to cite the Śaka era as the era of A.D. 78, it follows that, to be consistent, we must cite the Vikrama era as the era of B.C. 58, and the Kaliyuga era as the era of B.C. 3102.

It is, in any circumstances, a mistake to call the Vikrama era the era of B.C. 56.

^{page 1037 note 1} For treating the years as Kārttikādi, I need do nothing but quote the result arrived at by Professor Kielhorn (IA, 20. 399); namely, that ‘the reckoning by ‘Kārttikādi years was from the beginning intimately connected with the Vikrama ‘era, just as the reckoning by Chaitrādi years has always been characteristic of ‘the Śaka era.’

In respect of another detail in the calendar, Professor Kielhorn arrived at the result (loc. cit., 401) that “in early times the pūrṇimānta scheme of the “lunar months” [each month ending with the full-moon day” “was more “commonly followed in connection with the Vikrama era than the amānta “scheme” [each month ending with the new-moon day]. We may supplement that by the following observation.

We have an inscription from Zeda, of the time of Kanishka, the date in which, as read by Senart, M. (JA, 1890, 1. 136)Google Scholar runs:— Saṁ 10 1 Ashaḍasa masasa di 10 Utara-Phaguna iśa-chunami. This reading has been given by also Boyer, M. (JA, 1904, 1. 466); except that he has taken iśē chunami, and has endorsed Sir A. Cunningham's reading of the day (ASI, 5. 57) as 20, instead of 10. And (setting aside the question of the day) it is fully borne out by the facsimile published with M. Senart's article.Google Scholar

The moon cannot stand in the nakshatra Phalgunī, either Pūrvā or Uttarā, on kṛishṇa 10 (or 5) of Āshāḍha, either pūrṇimānta or amānta. But she often enters Uttara-Phalgunī on Āshāḍha śukla 5, which is the twentieth lunar day of the pūrṇimānta Āshāḍha. And anyone who is interested in the matter can find, by Professor Jacobi's Tables, that the moon was in Uttara-Phalgunī during suitable hours on Saturday, 13th June, B.C. 46, = Āshāḍha śukla 5, Kārttikādi Vikrama-Saṁvat 11 expired. I need hardly say, however, that I mention this result, not as proving anything final by itself, but as one amongst many items of cumulative evidence.

^{page 1037 note 2} There has long been a certain amount of doubt and irregularity in connexion with the question of current and expired years.

In the present day, while the Hindū almanacs of the rest of India cite expired years, some of those prepared in Madras cite the current year: see my Gupta Inscriptions, introd., 140 f.Google Scholar

As regards the inscriptions, the number of instances in which the year is defined as expired or current is probably much smaller than the number of instances in which the year is left undefined. But, however that may be, the case in other respects is as follows. The results of calculations of such dates as can be actually verified shew that some of the inscriptions do cite current years, which sometimes are defined as such, and sometimes are left undefined, A few of them cite both the current and the expired year. Some of them expressly define as current years which were actually expired. And others expressly define, as expired years which were actually current.

Now, most' of the Indian eras originated with regnal reckonings, for which current years would seem more appropriate than expired years. And I have expressed the opinion (ibid., 143), and have often acted on it, that current years could come to be superseded by expired years only if, and when, any particular era was taken over by the astronomers for astronomical purposes. The researches of Professor Kielhorn, however, have shewn, in respect of the Śaka era of A.D. 78 (IA, 25. 267), that during the period before A.D. 1078 the rule was to cite the expired year, and current years were cited very exceptionally indeed; and, as regards the Vikrama era of B.C. 58 (IA, 20. 398), that it has been at all times the rule to cite the expired year, and current years were cited only exceptionally. In these circumstances, I have more recently changed my practice, in favour of applying uniformly as expired all years, whether of eras or of reigns, which are cited without definition and cannot be proved by actual calculation of details to be current years.

^{page 1039 note 1} I have previously treated this date as falling in A.D. 46. That was with the year 103 taken as Kārttikādi, but as current. On this point, see note 2 on page 1037 above.

^{page 1039 note 2} See note 2 on page 1037 above.

^{page 1040 note 1} The relative positions would be just the same if we should apply the years 78 and 103, Kārttikādi, both as current; and even if we should take them as Chaitrādi, either both current or both expired.