Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c18: Chapter VIII. Scythian Rule in Northern India

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c18

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VIII. Scythian Rule in Northern India

Section I. The Śakas

c18.s1.1

In the second and first centuries B.C., Greek rule in parts of Kāfiristān, Gandhāra and possibly the Hazāra country, was supplanted by that of the Śakas. In the days of Darius, the Achaemenid king of Persia (B.C. 522-486), the Śakas lived beyond Sogdiana (*para-Sugdam*) in "the vast plains of the Syr Darya, of which the mordern capital is the town of Turkestan."¹ But already towards the end of the first century B.C. they were established at Sigal in modern Sīstān.² The story of their migration from central Asia has been recorded by Chinese historians. *The History of the First Han Dynasty* (*Ts'ien Han-Shu*) states "formerly when the Hiung-nū conquered the Ta-Yüe-tchi the latter emigrated to the west,³ and subjugated the Tahia; whereupon the *Sai-wang* went to the south, and ruled over Kipin."⁴ Sten Konow points out that the *Sai-wang* refer to the same people which are known in Indian tradition under the designation *Śaka-muruṇḍa*,⁵ *Muruṇḍa* being a later form of a Śaka word which has the same meaning as Chinese "*wang*," *i.e.*, king, master, lord. In Indian inscriptions and coins it has frequently been translated with the Indian word *Svāmin*.

c18.s1.2

¹ E. Herzfeld, MASI, 34, 3.

c18.s1.3

² Schoff, Isidore, *Stathmoi Parthikoi*, 17.

c18.s1.4

³ *C.* 174-160 B.C. according to some scholars.

c18.s1.5

⁴ *JRAS.*, 1903, p. 22; 1932, 958; *Modern Review*, April, 1921, p. 464. The Śaka occupation of Ki-pin must be posterior to the reign of Eukratides and his immediate (Greek) successors.

c18.s1.6

⁵ Professor Hermann identifies the Sai-wang with the Sakarauloi or Sakaraukoi of Strabo and other classical authors. *Corpus*, II. 1, xxf. For Muruṇḍa, see pp. xx,

c18.s1.7

The name of the Śaka king who occupied Kipin is not known. The earliest ruler of that region mentioned in Chinese records is Wu-t'ou-lao whose son was ousted by Yin-mo-fu, the son of the prince of Yung-k'ü,¹ with Chinese help. Yin-mo-fu established himself as king of Kipin during the reign of the Emperor Hsüan-ti, which lasted from 73 to 48 B.C., and killed the attendants of an envoy sent in the reign of the Emperor Yüan-ti (B.C. 48-33). In the reign of Chéng-ti (32-7 B.C.) the support of China was sought without success by the king of Kipin, probably the successor of Yin-mo-fu, who was in danger from some powerful adversary, apparently a king of the Yue-chi, who had relations with China about this time as is proved by the communication of certain Buddhist books to a Chinese official in 2 B.C.²

c18.s1.8

¹ The identification of Yung-k'ü with Yonaka (Tarn, 297) and that of Yin-mo-fu with Hermaios (Tarn, 346) are purely conjectural. Mention may be made in this connection of Zonkah in Tibbat (*JASB*, 1895, 97). But the problem of identification must await future discoveries.

c18.s1.9

² *Cal. Rev.*, Feb., 1924, pp. 251, 252; Smith, EHI, 3rd ed., p. 258n.; *JRAS.*, 1913, 647; *Ind. Ant.*, 1905, *Kashgar and the Kharoshṭhī*.

c18.s1.10

S. Lévi at first identified Kipin with Kaśmīra. But his view has been ably controverted by Sten Konow³ who accepts the identification with Kāpiśa.⁴ Gandhāra was at one time the eastern part of the realm of Kipin. A passage of Hemachandra's *Abhidhāna-Chintāmaṇi* seems to suggest that the capital of the Sai-wang (*Śaka-Muraṇḍa*) was Lampāka or Laghman (*Lampā-kāstu Muraṇḍāḥ syuḥ*).¹ Sten Konow says that according to the *Ts'ien Han-shu*, or *Annals of the First Han Dynasty*, the Sai, *i.e.*, the Śakas, passed the Hientu (the hanging passage), *i.e.*, the gorge west of Skardu on their way to Kipin.² Though the Śakas wrested parts of Kipin (Kāpiśa-Gandhāra) from the hands of Greek *meridarchs* (governors) they could not permanently subjugate Kābul,³ where the Basileus (king) maintained a precarious existence. They were more successful in India. Inscriptions at Mathurā and Nāsik prove that the Śakas extended their sway as far as the Jumna in the east and the Godāvari in the south, and destroyed the power of the 'Mitras' of Mathurā and the Sātavāhanas of Paiṭhan.⁴

c18.s1.11

³ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 291.

c18.s1.12

⁴ The country drained by the northern tributaries of the river Kābul, *ibid.*, p. 290; *cf.* Watters, *Yuan Chwang*, Vol. I, pp. 259-60. The city of Kāpiśī probably stood at the junction of the Ghorband and the Panjshir (Foucher, *Indian Studies presented to Prof. Rapson*, 343). Kipin according to the *Tsien Han-shu* joins Wu-i-shan-li (Arachosia and Persia according to Schoff, *Parthian Stations*, 41) on the south-west. *Corpus*, II, 1, xxiv; *JRAS.*, 1912, 684n. *Cf.* Dr. Hermann (*JRAS*, 1913, 1058n.) who holds that Ki-pin was Gandhāra. The reference to a *gold* as well as a silver currency in Ki-pin is worthy of note (*Corpus*, II. 1, xxiv). *Cf.* the gold coin of the city of Pushkalāvatī (*CHI*, 587, and the coin of Athama (442 *infra*).

c18.s1.13

¹ Lampāka (Laghman) is 100 miles to the east of Kapisene (*AGI*, 49).

c18.s1.14

² Ep. Ind., XIV, 291. *Corpus*, II. 1. xxiii. For possible alternative routes of conquest, *see* JRAS., 1913, 929, 959, 1008, 1023.

c18.s1.15

³ *Journal of the Department of Letters*, Vol. I, p. 81.

c18.s1.16

⁴ Some of the Śakas seem to have penetrated to the far south of India. A Nāgārjunikoṇḍa Inscription refers to a Śaka named Moda and his sister Budhi. *Ep. Ind.*, xx. 37.

c18.s1.17

No connected or detailed account of the Śaka potentates of Kipin is possible. Śakas are mentioned along with the Yavanas in the *Rāmāyaṇa*,⁵ the *Mahābhārata*,⁶ the *Manusaṁhitā*⁷ and the *Mahābhāshya*.⁸ The *Harivaṁśa*⁹ informs us that they shaved one-half of their heads. The Jaina work *Kālakāchārya-kathānaka* states that their kings were called Sāhi.¹⁰ Some of these 'Sāhis' are said to have been induced by a Jaina teacher to proceed to Suraṭṭha (Surāsḥṭra) Vishaya (country) and Ujjain in Hindukadeśa (India) where they overthrew some local chiefs and ruled for four years till they were themselves ousted by the founder of the era of 58 B.C.

c18.s1.18

⁵ I, 54. 22; IV. 43, 12.

c18.s1.19

⁶ II, 32, 17.

c18.s1.20

⁷ X. 44.

c18.s1.21

⁸ Ind. Ant., 1875, 244.

c18.s1.22

⁹ Chap. 14, 16. JRAS., 1906, 204.

c18.s1.23

¹⁰ ZDMG, 34, pp. 247ff., 262; Ind. Ant., X. 222.

c18.s1.24

The Śakas are also mentioned in the *Praśastis* of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi and Samudra Gupta. Their kingdom or empire "*Śakasthāna*" is probably mentioned in the *Mahāmāyūrī* (95), in the Mathurā Lion Capital Inscription and in the Chandravalli Stone Inscription of the Kadamba Mayūraśarman. The passage in the Mathurā inscription containing the word Śakasthāna runs thus:—

c18.s1.25

*Sarvasa Sakastanasa puyae.*

c18.s1.26

Cunningham and Bühler interpreted the passage as meaning "for the merit, or in honour, (of the people) of the whole of Sakasthāna." Dr. Fleet, however, maintained that "there are no real grounds for thinking that the Śakas ever figured as invaders of any part of northern India above Kāthiawāḍ and the western and southern parts of the territory now known as Mālwa." He took *Sarva* to be a proper name and translated the inscriptional passage referred to above as "a gift of Sarva in honour of his home."¹

c18.s1.27

¹ JRAS., 1904, 703f.; 1905, 155, 643f.; Mr. N. G. Majumdar (JASB., 1924, 17) takes *Sakastana*, to mean *Śakrasthāna*, *i.e.*, 'the place of Indra.' *Cf.* Fleet in JRAS., 1904, 705.

c18.s1.28

Fleet's objection is ineffective. Chinese evidence clearly establishes the presence of Śakas in Kipin, *i.e.*, Kāpiśa-Gandhāra.² As regards the presence of the tribe at Mathurā, the site of the inscription, we should note that the *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa*³ refers to a Śaka settlement in the *Madhyadeśa*. Dr. Thomas⁴ points out that the epigraphs on the Lion Capital exhibit a mixture of Śaka and Persian nomenclature. The name Mevaki for instance, which occurs in the inscription, is a variant of the Scythian name Mauakes.¹ The termination "-*ūs*" in Komūsā and °Samūśo seems to be Scythic. Dr. Thomas further points out that there is no difficulty in the expression of honour to the "whole realm of the Śakas" since we find in the Wardak, Sui Vihār and other inscriptions even more comprehensive expressions, *e.g.*, *Sarva sattvanam*—'of all living creatures.' As regards Fleet's renderings "*svaka*" and "*sakaṭṭhāna*," one's own place, Dr. Thomas says that it does not seem natural to inscribe on the stone, honour to somebody's own home. A *pūjā* addressed to a country is unusual, but inscription G of the Lion Capital contains a similar *pūjā* addressed to the chief representatives of the Śaka dominions.

c18.s1.29

² Note also the Kāpiśa types of the coins of Maues and Spalirises (*CHI*, 560n, 562, 591) and the foundation of a Kāpiśa satrapy *Corpus*, ii. 1. 150f.).

c18.s1.30

³ Chapter 58.

c18.s1.31

⁴ Ep. Ind., IX, pp. 138ff.; JRAS., 1906, 207f., 215f.

c18.s1.32

¹ *Cf.* Maues, Moga, and Mavaces, the commander of the Śakas who went to the aid of Darius Codomannus (Chinnock, Arrian, p. 142). *Cf.* also the coin-name Mevaku (S. Konow, *Corpus*, xxxiii n.). In the period 106 to 101 B.C. the king of Ferghana bore the Śaka name of Mu-ku'a (Tarn, *Greeks*, 308f.).

c18.s1.33

Śakasthāna, doubtless, included the district of Scythia mentioned in the *Periplus*, "from which flows down the river Sinthus (Indus) the greatest of all the rivers that flow into the Erythraean Sea (Indian Ocean)." The metropolis of "Scythia" in the time of the *Periplus* was Minnagara; and its market town was Barbaricum on the seashore.

c18.s1.34

Princes bearing Śaka names are mentioned in several inscriptions discovered in Taxila, Mathurā and Western India. According to Dr. Thomas "whatever Śaka dynasties may have existed in the Pañjāb or India, reached India neither through Afghānistān nor through Kaśmīra but, as Cunningham contended, by way of Sindh and the valley of the Indus."² This theory cannot be accepted in its entirety in view of the inadequate representation of Sind by Śaka coins, the Chinese account of the Śaka occupation of Kipin and the epigraphic evidence regarding the existence of a Scythian Satrapy at Kāpiśi and a Śaka principality in the Hazāra country.¹ We cannot also overlook the fact that some of the Śaka names hitherto discovered are those of the Northern Śakas who lived near the Sogdianoi.² The names Maues, Moga³ and Mevaki,⁴ for instance, are variants of the Śaka name Mauakes. We learn from Arrian that a chief named Mauakes or Movaces led the "Sacians (Śakas), a Scythian tribe belonging to the Scythians who dwelt in Asia," who lived outside the jurisdiction of the Persian governor of the Bactrians and the Sogdianians, but were in alliance with the Persian king. Chhaharata, Khakharāta or Kshaharāta, the family designation of several satrapal houses of Taxila, Mathurā, Western India and the Deccan, is perhaps equivalent to **Karatai** the name of a Śaka tribe of the North.⁵

c18.s1.35

² JRAS., 1906, p. 216.

c18.s1.36

¹ CHI, 569n, JASB., 1924, p. 14; S. Konow, *Corpus*, II. i. 13f. The Śaka conquest of Ki-pin did not mean the total extinction of the Greek principality in the Kābul region. *The History of the Later Han Dynasty* (A.D. 25-220) refers to the existence, side by side, of the kingdoms of Ki-pin and Kābul before the conquest of the latter state by the Parthians. Like the Śātavāhanas, the Greeks of the Kābul territory may have restored their fallen fortunes to a certain extent after the first rush of barbarian invasion had spent its force. It is also possible that Scythian chiefs for a time acknowledged the nominal suzerainty of the Greek *Basileus*.

c18.s1.37

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, pp. 399-400.

c18.s1.38

³ Taxila plate.

c18.s1.39

⁴ Mathurā Lion Capital.

c18.s1.40

⁵ *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, p. 400; *cf. Corpus*, II, I. xxxvi: "Kharaosta and Maues would belong to the north-western Śakas of Ki-pin and not to the branch which came to India from Seistān." *Cf.* xxxiii (case of Liaka).

c18.s1.41

The Conquest of the Lower Indus Valley, Cutch and parts of Western India may, however, have been effected by the Śakas of Western Śakasthāna (Sīstān) who are mentioned by Isidore of Charax. The name of the capitals of "Scythia" (which embraced the Lower Indus Valley) and of the kingdom of Mambarus (Nambanus?) in the time of the *Periplus* was Minnagara, and this was evidently derived from the city of Min in Śakasthāna mentioned by Isidore.¹ Rapson points out that one of the most characteristic features in the names of the Western Kshatrapas of Chashṭana's line, viz., "*Dāman*" (*-dama*) is found also in the name of a prince of the Drangianian house of Vonones. Lastly, the *Kārddamaka* family from which, according to a Kanheri Inscription, the daughter of the *Mahākshatrapa* Rudra claimed descent, apparently derived its name from the Kārddama river in the realm of the Persians.²

c18.s1.42

¹ *JRAS*, 1915, p. 830.

c18.s1.43

² Shāmasastry's trans. of the *Arthaśāstra*, p. 86, n. 6. *cf.* Artemis (Ptolemy, 324), Gordomaris, Loeb, Marcellinus (ii, 389). For another view see *Ind. Ant.*, XII. 273 n. The word *Kārdamika* occurs in the *Mahābhāshya* (IV. 2. 1. Word Index, p. 275); Kramadīśvara, 747; and Kardamila in Mbh. III. 135. 1. The Kārddama river may be identified with the Zarafshan which flowed through the old Achæmenian Satrapy of Bactria or Balkh. The *Uttarakāṇḍa* of the *Rāmāyaṇa* (Chs. 100 and 102) connects a line of Kārddama kings with Bāhli or Bāhlīka (*IHQ.*, 1933, pp. 37 ff.).

c18.s1.44

The earliest Śaka kings mentioned in Indian inscriptions are, perhaps, Damijada³ and **Maues**. The latter is usually identified with Moga of the Taxila plate. He is possibly mentioned also in the Maira Inscription.⁴ Maues-Moga was a mighty sovereign (*Maharaya*). His dominions included Chuksha near Taxila which was ruled by a satrapal, *i.e.*, a viceregal, family. Numismatic evidence points to his sway over Kāpiśi⁵ and Pushkarāvatī as well as Taxila.⁶ His satrapas probably put an end to Greek and Indian rule in the country round Mathurā. In parts of the Eastern Pañjāb and certain adjacent tracts indigenous tribes like the Audumbaras, Trigartas, Kunindas, Yaudheyas, Ārjunāyanas had begun to assert their independence probably after the collapse of the Euthydemian monarchy. Maues struck coins with the types of Eukratides and Demetrios. But the absence of the Athena Alkis type leads Tarn to surmise that he did not annex Menander's home kingdom (*i.e.*, the district round Sākala).¹

c18.s1.45

³ Or Namijada, Shahdaur Ins., *Corpus*, II. i. 14, 16.

c18.s1.46

⁴ At Maira in the Salt Range, a Kharoshṭhī Inscription has been found in a well which seems to be dated in the year 58 and possibly contains the word Moasa, 'of Moa or Moga.'

c18.s1.47

⁵ *Camb. Hist., Ind.* I. 590 f.

c18.s1.48

⁶ *Ibid.*, 701.

c18.s1.49

¹ Tarn, *The Greeks in Bactria and India*, 322-330. The conquest of this kingdom may have been effected by Azes I. Whitehead, *Indo-Greek Coins*, 112; Tarn, *GBI*, 349; or by Rājuvula, Allan, *CICAI*, 185.

c18.s1.50

The dates assigned to Maues by various scholars range from B.C. 135 to A.D. 154. His coins are found ordinarily in the Pañjāb, and chiefly in the western portion of the province of which Taxila was the ancient capital. There can thus be no doubt that Maues was the king of Gandhāra. Now, it is impossible to find for Maues a place in the history of the Pañjāb before the Greek king Antialkidas who was reigning at Taxila when king Bhāgabhadra was on the throne of Vidiśā in Central India for fourteen years. The date of Bhāgabhadra is uncertain but he must be placed later than Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra, who ruled from *cir.* B.C. 151 to 143. The fourteenth year of Bhāgabhadra, therefore, could not have fallen before *c.* 129 B.C. Consequently Antialkidas could not have been ruling earlier than the second half of the second century B.C.,² and his reign could not have ended before 129 B.C. The Śaka occupation of Gandhāra must, therefore, be later than 129 B.C. All scholars except Fleet identify Maues with *Maharaya Moga* of the so-called Sirsukh or Taxila plate, dated in the year 78 of an unspecified era. The generally accepted view is that the era is of Śaka institution. As the era is used only in Northern India and the borderland, it is permissible to conjecture that it came into existence after the Śaka occupation of those regions. We have already seen that this occupation could not have taken place before 129 B.C. The era used in the Taxila plate could not, therefore, have originated before 129 B.C. The year 78 of the era could not have fallen before B.C. (129-78=) 51. Consequently the rule of Maues-Moga cannot have ended before B.C. 51. He must be placed even later, because we learn from Chinese records that Yin-mo-fu was in possession of Kipin or Kāpiśa-Gandhāra about 48-33 B.C., and he was preceded by Wu-tou-lao and his son. As there is no real ground for identifying Maues-Moga with any of these rulers he will have to be placed after 33 B.C. He cannot perhaps be placed later than the middle of the first century A.D., because we learn from Philostratos and the author of the *Periplus* that about the time or a little later both Taxila and Minnagara, the metropolis of Scythia, *i.e.* the Śaka kingdom in the Indus valley, had passed into the hands of the Parthians. It seems, therefore, that Maues-Moga ruled after 33 B.C., but before the latter half of the first century A.D. According to Fleet, Moga flourished in the year 22 A.D.—the year 78 of the era commencing 58 B.C. which afterwards came to be known as the *Kṛita-Mālava-Vikrama* era. But the matter must be regarded as not definitely settled. The Khalatse Inscription of the year 187 (?) of Uvima (? Wema Kadphises) and the Taxila Silver Vase Inscription of the year 191 of Jihonika possibly suggest that the era to which the dates of these inscriptions, and presumably that of the so-called Sirsukh (Taxila) plate of Moga, are to be referred, began much earlier than B.C. 58.

c18.s1.51

² *Cf.*, now Marshall, *Monuments of Sāñchī*, I, 268n.

c18.s1.52

Numismatists say that Maues was succeeded on the throne of Gandhāra by Azes who put an end to the remnant of Greek rule in the Eastern Pañjāb by annexing the kingdom of Hippostratos. In the opinion of Marshall he also conquered the Jumna valley where the Vikrama era was in use.¹ The coins of Azes are very closely related to the issues of the rulers of the Vonones group, and the assumption has always been made that Azes, the king of the Pañjāb, is identical with Azes, the colleague of Spalirises. Some scholars think that there were two kings of the name of Azes and that the first Azes was the immediate successor, not of Maues, but of Spalirises and that Maues came not only after Azes I, but also after Azes II. But the last part of the theory cannot be accepted in view of the synchronism of Gondophernes and Azes II proved by the fact that Aspavarman served as *Strategos*, *i.e.*, general or governor, under both the monarchs.² As Gondophernes ruled in the year 103,³ while Maues-Moga ruled in the year 78,⁴ and as both these dates are *usually* referred by scholars to the same era, both Gondophernes and his contemporary Azes II must be later than Maues-Moga. There is no room for Maues-Moga between Azes I and Azes II, because we shall see presently that the succession from Azes I to Azes II is clearly established by numismatic evidence. Maues came either before Azes I or after Azes II; but we have already seen that he could not have reigned after Azes II. He must, therefore, be placed before Azes I. He may have been ruling in the Pañjāb when Vonones was ruling in Sīstān. When Vonones was succeeded by Spalirises, Maues was succeeded by Azes I. We have already seen that Spalirises and Azes I issued joint coins.¹ The relationship between the two monarchs is not known. They may have been related by blood, or they may have been mere allies like Hermaios and Kujūla Kadphises.²

c18.s1.53

¹ *JRAS*, 1947, 22.

c18.s1.54

² Whitehead, *Catalogue of Coins in the Pañjāb Museum*, p. 150.

c18.s1.55

³ *Cf.* the Takht-i-Bāhī Inscription.

c18.s1.56

⁴ *Cf.* the Taxila Plate of Patika.

c18.s1.57

¹ Rapson on pp. 573-574 of *CHI*, identifies Azes, the colleague of Spalirises, with Azes II, and makes him the son of Spalirises. On page 572, however, the suggestion is found that Azes II was the son and successor of Azilises. It is difficult to see how the two views can be reconciled. For an inscription of Azes see *Corpus*, II. i. 17 (Shahdaur Inscription of Sivarakshita). The name of Aja or Aya (Azes) has also been recognised by certain scholars in the Kalawān Inscription of the year 134 and in the Taxila silver scroll record of the year 136. The absence of any honorific title before the name makes it difficult to say whether it refers to a king, and, if it does refer to a king, whether the ruler in question was Azes I Or Azes II. Moreover, if Aja or Aya is a royal name, then it would seem, from the analogy of other early Indian epigraphs, that the years 134 and 136 actually belonged to his reign; not years of an era which he founded but of an era which he used. The absence of any honorific title has, however, led some writers to suggest that Aja-Aya was the founder of the reckoning mentioned in the epigraphs, and not the reigning sovereign in the years 134 and 136. The identity of the reckoning with the era of 58 B.C. cannot be regarded as certain, though the theory has many advocates. Another thorny problem is the relation between this reckoning and the reckoning or reckonings used by Moga and Gondophernes. For the Kalawān Inscription see *Ep. Ind.* XXI. 251 ff.; *IHQ.* 1932, 825; 1933, 141; *India in 1932-33*, p. 182.

c18.s1.58

² *Cf.* Whitehead, p. 178; Marshall, *Taxila*, p. 16.

c18.s1.59

King Azes I struck some coins bearing his own name in Greek on the obverse, and that of Azilises in *Kharoshṭhî* on the reverse.³ Then again we have another type of coins on which the name in Greek is Azilises, and in *Kharoshṭhî* is *Aya* (Azes). Drs. Bhandarkar and Smith postulate that these two joint types, when considered together, prove that Azilises, before his accession to independent power, was the subordinate colleague of an Azes, and that an Azes similarly was subsequently the subordinate colleague of Azilises. The two princes named Azes cannot, therefore, be identical, and they must be distinguished as Azes I and **Azes II**. Whitehead, however, observes that the silver coins of Azilises are better executed and earlier in style than those of Azes. The best didrachms of Azes compare unfavourably with the fine silver coins of Azilises with Zeus obverse and Dioskouroi reverse, and with other rare silver types of Azilises. If Azilises preceded Azes, then following Dr. Smith we must have Azilises I and Azilises II, instead of Azes I and Azes II. In conclusion Whitehead says that the differences in type and style between the abundant issues of Azes can be adequately explained by reasons of locality alone, operating through a long reign.¹ Marshall, however, points out that the stratification of coins at Taxila clearly proves the correctness of Smith's theory, according to which Azes I was succeeded by Azilises, and Azilises by Azes II.²

c18.s1.60

³ Coins of Azilises are imitated by Mahādeva Dharaghosha Audumbara (*CHI*, 529). Along with certain caskets discovered in Taxila (*ASI, AR*, 1934-35, pp. 29, 30) was a silver coin of the *dioskouroi* type of Azilises and a Roman coin issued by Augustus. The deposit was probably made early in the first century A.D. We have here new data for settling the chronology of the Maues—Azes group of kings. It may be remembered that Kadphises I copied the bust of Augustus or one of his immediate successors on his coins. Azilises should not be far removed in date from the Julian Emperors or from the period of Kushān invasion.

c18.s1.61

¹ Inferior workmanship according to some, is a sign of remoteness (from Gandhāra?) rather than of late date (*cf. CHI*, 569f). G. Hoffmann and Sten Konow not only reject the duplication of Azes, but suggest the identification of Azes with Azilises. According to Marshall Azilises ruled north-westwards as far as Kāpiśi (*JRAS*, 1947, 25 ff).

c18.s1.62

² The coins which Smith assigns to Azes II are found generally nearer the surface than those of Azes I (*JRAS.*, 1914, 979). For Konow's view, see *Ep. Ind.*, 1926, 274 and *Corpus*, II. i. xxxix-xl. The name 'Azes' is found in association with several rulers of various dates, while that of Azilises is found only with one (*viz.*, Azes). This possibly points to the plurality of the kings named Azes.

c18.s1.63

A notable discovery has unearthed the unique *gold* coin of a king named **Aṭhama**. Whitehead has no hesitation in recognising him as a member of the dynasty of Azes and Azilises. His date is, however, uncertain.

c18.s1.64

Unlike most of the Indo-Greek princes,³ the Saka kings style themselves on their coins *Basileus Basileon*, corresponding to the Prākrit on the reverse *Mahārājasa Rājarājasa*. They also appropriate the epithet *Mahatasa*, corresponding to the Greek *Megaloy*, which we find on the coins of Greek kings. The title *Rājarāja*—king of kings—was not an empty boast. Moga had under him the viceroys (satraps) Liaka and Patika of Chukhsha (Chach) in the Western Punjab. One of the kings named Azes had under him at least one subordinate ruler, *e.g.*, the *Stratagos* Aspavarman. The title *Satrap* or *Kshatrapa* occurs in the Behistun Inscription of Persia in the form *Khshathrapāvan* which means ‘protector of the kingdom.’¹ “*Strategos*,” a Greek word, means a general. It is obvious that the Scythians continued in North-Western India the Perso-Hellenic system of government by *Satraps* and military governors. Coins and Inscriptions prove the existence of several other Satrapal families besides those mentioned above.

c18.s1.65

³ With the exception perhaps of Eukratides one of whose coins bears the legend *Maharajasa rajatirajasa Evukratidasa* (*Corpus*, II. i. xxix n.), and of a few other rulers including Hermaios (Whitehead, p. 85).

c18.s1.66

¹ *Cf.* *Ksha-pāvan* of the Rig-veda (*Vedic Index*, I. 208). *Rāshṭra-pāla* of the *Arthaśāstra* and *Goptṛi* or *Deśa-goptṛi* of the *Mālavikāgnimitram* and the Gupta inscriptions.

c18.s1.67

The **North Indian Kshatrapas** or Satraps may be divided into three main groups, *viz.*:—

c18.s1.68

1. The Satraps of Kāpiśi, Puspapura and Abhisāra-prastha,

c18.s1.69

2. The Satraps of the Western Pañjāb, and

c18.s1.70

3. The Satraps of Mathurā.

c18.s1.71

A Māṇikiālā inscription affords the bare mention of a **Satrap of Kāpiśi**, who was the son of the Satrap Granavhryaka.² A Kābul Museum Stone Inscription of the year 83³ discloses the name of a Satrap of Puspapura named Tiravharṇa. ‘Puspapura’, the city of flowers, may have reference to Pushkarāvatī (lotus-city). The name of Śivasena, ‘the Kshatrapa in the town of Abhisāraprastha’ occurs in the legend of a copper seal ring found in the Pañjāb.¹ The territory of the three Satraps may have corresponded to Yona, Gandhāra and Kamboja of Aśokan epigraphs.

c18.s1.72

² Rapson, *Andhra Coins*, ci; *Ancient India*, 141; *JASB.*, 1924, 14, *Corpus*, II. i, 150-1.

c18.s1.73

³ *Acta Orientalia*, xvi, Pars iii, 1937, pp. 234 ff.

c18.s1.74

¹ *Corpus*, II. i. 103.

c18.s1.75

The **Pañjāb Satraps** belonged to three families, *viz.*—

c18.s1.76

(*a*) **The Kusulua or Kusuluka Group.**—It consisted of Liaka and his son Patika, possibly of the Chhabarata or Kshaharāta family, who apparently governed the district of Chuksha.² According to Fleet there were two Patikas.³ But in the opinion of Marshall there was only one viceroy of the name of Patika.⁴ The Satrapal line of Kusuluka was intimately connected with the Satraps of Mathurā.⁵ The coins of Liaka Kusuluka show the transition of the district to which they belonged, *i.e.*, a part of Eastern Gandhāra, from the rule of the Greek house of Eukratides to the Śakas.⁶ We learn from the Taxila, or the so-called Sirsukh, plate, dated in the year 78, that Liaka was a Satrap of the great king Moga and that Patika, his son, was a great gift-lord (*mahādānapati*).⁷

c18.s1.77

² Bühler, *Ep. Ind*, IV, p. 54; Konow, *Corpus*, II. i. 25-28. Chuksha, according to Stein. is the present Chach in the north of the District of Attock. See also *AGI*², 63, 126.

c18.s1.78

³ *JRAS*., 1907, p. 1035. The existence of at least two Liakas is, however, proved by the Taxila plate and the Zeda inscription (*Corpus*, II. i. 145). A Lia(ka) appears also to be mentioned in the Mānsehrā inscription of the year 68. He may have been identical with the father of Patika, *Ep, Ind*, XXI, 257.

c18.s1.79

⁴ *JRAS.*, 1914, pp. 979 ff.

c18.s1.80

⁵ *Cf.* Inscription G on the Mathurā Lion Capital.

c18.s1.81

⁶ Rapson’s *Ancient India*, p 154.

c18.s1.82

⁷ *Ep. Ind.*, XXI, 257; *JRAS*, 1932. 953n.

c18.s1.83

(*b*) **Manigul** and his son **Zeionises** or **Jihonika.**—Numismatists consider them to be Satraps of Pushkalāvatī during the reign of Azes II. But the Taxila Silver Vase Inscription of the year 191 discovered by Marshall in 1927¹ shows that Jihonika was a Kshatrapa in Cukhsha near Taxila in the year 191 of an era of Saka (or Parthian?) institution whose exact epoch is not known.² The successor of Zeionises was apparently Kuyula Kara.³

c18.s1.84

¹ *JRAS.*, 1928, January, 137 f. *Corpus*, II. i. 81 f.

c18.s1.85

² *Ep. Ind*, XXI. 255f.

c18.s1.86

³ *CHI*, 582n, 588.

c18.s1.87

(c) **The House of Indravarman**⁴—It consisted of Indravarman, his son Aspavarman, and Aspa's nephew Sasa(s) or Sasa(n). Aspavarman acted as governor of both Azes II and Gondophernes, while Sasa(s) served under Gondophernes and Pakores.

c18.s1.88

⁴ Indravarman has been identified by some scholars with Itravarma, son of Vijayamitra, who is known from certain coins. Vijayamitra is further regarded as identical with, or a successor of, Viyakamitra, a feudatory of Minedra (Menander) The importance of these identifications, in determining the chronological relation of the Indo-Greeks and the Sakas, is obvious, (Majumder, *Ep. Ind.* xxiv, 1ff; Sircar, *Select Inscriptions*, 102 ff; *Ep. Ind.* xxvi. 321 Mookerji, *IC*, XIV, 4, 1948, 205 f).

The Satraps of Mathurā

c18.s1.t1.1

The earliest of this line of princes were once belived to be the rulers Hagāna and Hagāmasha. They were supposed to be succeeded by Rājuvula, who may have governed Sākala at an earlier stage. According to Allan⁵ he established himself in Mathurā late in life. The genealogical table of the house of Rājuvula or Rājula as arranged by Sten Konow⁶ is given below in a foot-note.

c18.s1.t1.2

⁵ *CIC., AI.* CXV.

c18.s1.t1.3

⁶ *Corpus* II. i. 47. The genealogy, as reconstructed by Sten Konow, is not accepted by many scholars. An older view makes Kharaosta the son of a daughter of Rājuvula. For Rājuvula's connection with C. Pañjāb, see Allan, *CCAI*, 185. Cf. 438 *ante*.

c18.s1.t1.4

**Rājuvula** or Rājula is known from inscriptions as well as coins. An inscription in Brāhmī characters at Mora near Mathurā calls him a *Mahākshatrapa* or *Great Satrap* (viceroy). But the Greek legend on some of his coins describes him as "king of kings, the Saviour" showing that he probably declared his independence.

c18.s1.t1.5

genealogical table

c18.s1.t1.6

Rājuvula was apparently succeeded by his son Śuḍasa, Soṃdāsa or Śoḍāsa. Inscription B on the Mathurā Lion Capital mentions him as a *Kshatrava* (Satrap) and as the son of the *Mahākshatrava* Rajula (Rājuvula). But later inscriptions at Mathurā written in *Brāhmī* characters call him a *Mahākshatrapa*. One of these inscriptions gives a date for him in the year 72¹ of an unspecified era. It is clear that during his father's lifetime he was only a *Satrap*. But on his father's death some time before the year 72, he became a Great Satrap. Sten Konow adduces grounds for believing that Śoḍāsa dated his inscription in the so-called Vikrama era.² Consequently the year 72, in his opinion, possibly corresponds to A. D. 15.

c18.s1.t1.7

¹ 42 according to Rapson. But 72 is preferred by most scholars.

c18.s1.t1.8

² *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XIV, pp. 139-141.

c18.s1.t1.9

Dr. R. C. Majumdar refers the dates of the Northern Satraps (of Taxila and Mathurā) to the *Śaka* era, and places them in the middle of the second century A. D. But Ptolemy, who flourished about that time, places neither Taxila nor Mathurā within Indo-Scythia, *i.e.*, the Śaka dominion. This shows that neither Taxila nor Mathurā was a Śaka possession in the second century A. D. The principal Indo-Scythian possessions in Ptolemy's time were Patalene (the Indus Delta), Abiria (the Ābhīra country in Western India), and Syrastrene (Kāthiāwāḍ).³ This is exactly what we find in the Junāgaḍh inscription of the Saka ruler Rudradāman I, who flourished in the middle of the second century A.D. In Ptolemy's time Taxila was included within the Arsa (*Sanskrit Uraśā*) territory,¹ and Mathurā belonged to the Kaspeiraioi.² Dr. Majumdar suggests that Ptolemy probably noticed the Śaka empire of Maues and his successors (which included Taxila, Mathurā and Ujjayinī) under the name of 'Kaspeiraioi.'³ But we should remember that far from including Taxila, Mathurā and Western India within one empire, Ptolemy sharply distinguishes the land of the Kaspeiraioi from Indo-Scythia which was the real Śaka domain in the middle of the second century A.D.⁴ Moreover, the territory of the Kaspeiraioi must have included the region below the sources of the Jhelum Chenab and the Ravi, *i.e.*, Kaśmīra and its neighbourhood;⁵ and there is no evidence that the dynasty of Maues ever ruled in Kaśmīra. It was only under the kings of Kanishka's dynasty that Kaśmīra and Mathurā formed parts of one and the same empire. As suggested by the Abbé Boyer the Kaspeiraioi of Ptolemy evidently referred to the Kushān empire.

c18.s1.t1.10

³ *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, p. 354.

c18.s1.t1.11

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, p. 348.

c18.s1.t1.12

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, p. 350.

c18.s1.t1.13

³ *Journal of the Department of Letters*, University of Calcutta, Vol. I, p. 98 n.

c18.s1.t1.14

⁴ *Cf.* Ptolemy, *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, p. 354, and the Junāgaḍh Inscription of the Saka ruler Rudradāman.

c18.s1.t1.15

⁵ Land of Kaśyapa? *Rājataranginī*, I, 27, IA, IV, 227. Stein accepts the identification of the territory of the Kaspeiraioi with Kaśmīr, but rejects Wilson's assumption that Kaśmīr was derived from Kaśyapa pura (*JASB.*, 1899, Extra 2, pp. 9-13). The evidence of Ptolemy seems to suggest that the city of Kaspeira stood close to Multan. Alberunī (I. 298) in a later age mentions Kaśyapapura as a name of Multan itself.

c18.s1.t1.16

We learn from the Mathurā Lion Capital Inscriptions that when Sudasa, *i.e.* Soḍāsa, was ruling as a mere *Kshatrapa*, Kusuluka Patika was a *Mahākshatrapa*. As Soḍāsa was a Mahākshatrapa in the year 72, he must have been a Kshatrapa before 72. Consequently Kusuluka Patika must have been reigning as a Mahākshatrapa contemporary of the Kshatrapa Śoḍāsa before the year 72. The Taxila plate of the year 78, however, does not style Patika as a Kshatrapa or *Mahākshatrapa*. It calls him *Mahādānapati* (great gift-lord) and gives the satrapal title to his father Liaka.¹ Dr. Fleet thinks ² that we have to do with two different Patikas. Marshall and Sten Konow on the other hand, hold the view that the *Mahādānapati* Patika, who issued the Taxila plate, is identical with the *Mahākshatrapa* Kusuluka Patika of the Mathurā Lion Capital, but the era in which the inscription of *Saṁ* 72 is dated, is not the same as in the Taxila plate of *Saṁ* 78. In other words while Fleet duplicates kings, Marshall and Sten Konow duplicate eras. It is difficult to come to any final decision from the scanty data at our disposal. Fleet’s theory is not improbable in view of the fact that we have evidence regarding the existence of at least two Liakas. But the duplication of kings is not absolutely necessary as the designation ‘*mahādānapati*’ given to Patika in the Taxila plate does not preclude the possibility of his having been a *Mahākshatrapa* as well a few years back. We should remember in this connection that there are instances among the Western Kshatrapas of Chashṭana’s line, of *Mahākshatrapas* being reduced to a humbler rank ³ while other members of the family held the higher office,⁴ and of a *Kshatrapa* (Jayadāman) being mentioned without the satrapal title.⁵ It is, therefore, not altogether improbable that the inscription of *Saṁ* 72 and that of *Saṁ* 78 are dated in the same era, and yet the two Patikas are identical.¹ If Sten Konow and Sir John Marshall are right in reading the name of Aja-Aya (Azes) in the Kalawān Copper-plate Inscription of the year 134 and the Taxila Inscription of 136, we have additional instances of a ruler of this age being mentioned without any title indicative of his rank.

c18.s1.t1.17

¹ Sten Konow, *Corpus*, Vol. II, Pt. I, 28; *Ep. Ind.* XIX, 257.

c18.s1.t1.18

² *JRAS.*, 1913, 1001 n.

c18.s1.t1.19

³ *Cf.* Majumdar, *The Date of Kanishka*, *Ind. Ant.*, 1917.

c18.s1.t1.20

⁴ Rapson, *Coins of the Andhra Dynasty, etc.*, cxxiv f.

c18.s1.t1.21

⁵ Andhau Inscriptions.

c18.s1.t1.22

¹ The *Rājataraṅgiṇī* furnishes an instance of a son being replaced by his father as king (*cf.* the case of Pārtha), and of a king abdicating in favour of his son and again resuming control over the kingdom; *cf.* the case of Kalasa who continued to be a co-ruler after the resumption of control by his father, and that of Rājā Mānsingh of Jodhpur (1804-43). The cases of Vijayāditya VII (*Eastern Chalukya*, D. C. Ganguli, p. 104) and of Zāfar Khān of Gujarāt may also be cited in this connection (*Camb. Hist. Ind.*, III, 295).

c18.s1.t1.23

**Kharaosta** was, according to S. Konow, the father-in-law, and according to Fleet, a grandson (daughter's son), of Rājuvula and consequently a nephew of Śoḍāsa.² The inscriptions A and E on the Mathurā Lion Capital mention him as the *Yuvaraya* Kharaosta. Sten Konow thinks³ that he was the inheritor to the position as "king of kings" after Moga. His known coins are of two types, presenting legends in Greek characters on the obverse and in Kharoshṭhī on the reverse. The *Kharoshṭhī* legend runs thus: *Kshatrapasa pra Kharaostasa Arṭasa putrasa*. '*Pra*' according to Sten Konow, may be a reflex of *Prachakshasa*.⁴

c18.s1.t1.24

² JRAS, 1913, 919, 1009.

c18.s1.t1.25

³ *Corpus*, 36.

c18.s1.t1.26

⁴ *Corpus*, xxxv. '*prachakshasa*' (=epiphanous, "of the gloriously manifest one"), occurs on coins of Strato I and Polyxenos. It is, however, possible that the Sanskrit equivalent of the name of the Satrap is *prakhara-ojas*, "of burning effulgence."

c18.s1.t1.27

The coins of the family of Rājuvula are imitated from those of the Stratos and also of a line of Hindu princes who ruled at Mathurā. This shows that in the Jumna valley Scythian rule superseded that of both Greek and Hindu princes.

c18.s1.t1.28

A fragmentary inscription found by Vogel on the site of Gaṇeshrā near Mathurā revealed the name of Satrap of the Kshaharāta family called Ghaṭāka.¹

c18.s1.t1.29

¹ *JRAS.*, 1912, p. 121.

The Nationality of the Northern Satraps

c18.s1.t2.1

Cunningham held that the inscription P on the Mathurā Lion Capital—*Sarvasa Sakastanasa puyae*—gave decisive proof that Rājuvula or Rājula, Śoḍāsa and other connected Satraps were of Śaka nationality. Dr. Thomas shows, however, that the Satraps of Northern India were the representatives of a mixed Parthian and Śaka domination. This is strongly supported *a priori* by the fact that Patika of Taxila, who bears himself a Persian name, mentions as his overlord the great king Moga whose name is Śaka. The inscriptions on the Lion Capital exhibit a mixture of Persian and Śaka nomenclature.² Attention may, however, be called here to the fact that in the *Harivaṁśa* there is a passage³ which characterises the Pahlavas or Parthians as "*śmaśrudhāriṇaḥ*" (bearded).⁴ Judged by this test, kings of the family of Rājuvula and Nahapāna, who are not unoften taken to be Parthians, could not have belonged to that nationality as their portraits found on coins⁵ show no traces of beards and whiskers. They were, therefore, almost certainly Śakas.

c18.s1.t2.2

² *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. IX, pp. 138 ff.; *JRAS.*, 1906, 215 f. For Sten Konow's views see *Corpus*, II. i. xxxvii.

c18.s1.t2.3

³ I. 14, 17.

c18.s1.t2.4

⁴ The passage is also found in the *Vāyu Purāṇa*, Ch. 88, 141.

c18.s1.t2.5

⁵ *JRAS.*, 1913, between pp. 630-631.

Section II. The Pahlavas or Parthians

c18.s2.1

¹ The Parthians (Pārthava, Pahlava) were an Iranian people established on the borders of the district that is today Mazandarān and Khurāsān. About 249/8 B.C. they revolted against the Seleukids under the command of Arshaka (Arsaces), a leader of Scythia (Pope and Ackerman, *A Survey of Persian Art*, p. 71).

c18.s2.2

Already in the time of Eukratides, Mithradates I, King of Parthia (*c.* 171-138/37 B.C.), had probably conquered portions of the Pañjāb or Sind, and in the days of the Śaka Emperors of the family of Maues-Moga, princes of mixed Śaka-Pahlava origin ruled as Satraps in Northern India. But it is important to note that Isidore of Charax, possibly a younger contemporary of Augustus, who wrote not earlier than 26 B.C. (reign of Phraates IV and the revolt of Tiridates) and is quoted by Pliny, does not include the Kābul Valley, Sind or the Western Pañjāb within the empire of the Parthians or Pahlavas. The easternmost provinces of the Parthian empire mentioned by that writer are Herat (Aria), Farah (the country of the Anauoi, a segment of Aria (i.e., the Herat Province), the districts between the Lake Hamun and the Helmund (Drangiana and Sakasthāna), and Kandahār (Arachosia or "White India"). Towards the middle of the first century A.D., however, Śaka sovereignty in parts of Gandhāra must have been supplanted by that of the Parthians. In 43-44 A.D., when Apollonios of Tyana is reputed to have visited Taxila, the throne was occupied by Phraotes, evidently a Parthian.² He was however independent of Vardanes, the great King of Babylon and Parthia (*c.* 39-47/48 A.D.)³, and himself powerful enough to exercise suzerain power over the “Satrap of the Indus.” Christian writers refer to a king of India named Gundaphar or Gūdnaphar and his brother Gad who are said to have been converted by the Apostle St. Thomas and who, therefore, lived in the first century A.D.¹ We have no independent confirmation of the story of the biographer of Apollonios. But the “so-called” Takht-i-Bāhī record of the year 103 (of an unspecified era) shows that there was actually in the Peshāwar district a king named **Guduvhara** (**Gondophernes**). The names of Gondophernes and, in the opinion of some scholars, of his brother Gad, are also found on coins.² According to Rapson the two brothers were associated as sub-kings under the suzerainty of Orthagnes (Verethragna). Sten Konow, however, identifies Orthagnes with Guduvhara himself, while Herzfeld suggests that he was the “unnamed son of Vardanes, mentioned by Tacitus, who claimed the throne against Volagases I about A.D. 55.”³ Dr. Fleet referred the date of the Takht-i-Bahaī (Bāhī) inscription to the Mālava-Vikrama era, and so placed the record in A.D. 47.⁴ He remarked “there should be no hesitation about referring the year 103 to the established Vikrama era of B.C. 58; instead of having recourse, as in other cases too, to some otherwise unknown era beginning at about the same time. This places Gondophernes in A.D. 47 which suits exactly the Christian tradition which makes him a contemporary of St. Thomas, the Apostle.''

c18.s2.3

² *Apratihata* (Gondophernes) according to Herzfeld and Tarn (*Greeks*, 341).

c18.s2.4

³ Debevoise, *A Political History of Parthia*, 270.

c18.s2.5

¹ The original Syriac text of the legend of St. Thomas belongs probably to the third century A.D. (JRAS., 1913, 634). *Cf. Ind. Ant.*, 3. 309.

c18.s2.6

² Whitehead, pp. 95, 155. Gondophernes=Vindapharna, “Winner of glory” (Whitehead, p. 146, Rapson and Allan). The king assumed the title of Devavrata. S. Konow, following Fleet, takes the word Guḍana on the coins to refer to the tribe of Gondophernes (*Corpus*, II. i. xlvi).

c18.s2.7

³ *Corpus*, xlvi; *The Cambridge Shorter History of India*, 70.

c18.s2.8

⁴ *JRAS.*, 1905, pp. 223-235; 1906, pp. 706-710; 1907, pp. 169-172; 1013-1040; 1913, pp. 999-1003. *Cf.* the views of Cunningham and Dowson (IA, 4, 307). The discovery of the Khalatse and the Taxila silver vase inscriptions, however, makes the theory of Fleet less plausible unless we believe in the existence of a plurality of Śaka-Pahlava eras. Dr. Jayaswal was inclined to place Gondophernes in 20 B.C. But this date is too early to suit the Christian tradition.

c18.s2.9

The power of Gondophernes did not probably in the beginning extend to the Gandhāra region. His rule seems to have been restricted at first to Southern Afghānistān.¹ He succeeded, however, in annexing the Peshāwar district before the twenty-sixth year of his reign. There is no epigraphic evidence that he conquered Eastern Gandhāra (Taxila) though he certainly wrested some provinces from the Azes family. The story of the supersession of the rule of Azes II by him in one of the Scythian provinces is told by the coins of Aspavarman. The latter at first acknowledged the suzerainty of Azes (II) but later on obeyed Gondophernes as his overlord. Evidence of the ousting of Śaka rule by the Parthians in the Lower Indus Valley is furnished by the author of the Periplus in whose time (about 60 to 80 A.D.) Minnagara, the metropolis of Scythia, *i.e.*, the Śaka kingdom in the Lower Indus Valley, was subject to Parthian princes who were constantly driving each other out. If Sten Konow and Sir John Marshall are right in reading the name of Aja-Aya or Azes in the Kalawān Inscription of 134 and the Taxila Inscription of 136, then it is possible that Śaka rule survived in a part of Eastern Gandhāra,² while Peshāwar and the Lower Indus Valley passed into the hands of the Parthians. But the absence of an honorific title before the name of Aja-Aya and the fact that in the record of the year 136 we have reference to the establishment of relics of the Buddha in Takshaśilā "for the bestowal of health on the *Mahārāja Rājātirāja Devaputra Khushaṇa*," probably suggest that the years 134 and 136 belong, not to the *pravardhamāna-vijayarājya* (the increasing and victorious reign) of Azes, but to a period when his reign was a thing of the past (*atītarājya*), though the reckoning was still associated with his honoured name. The dating in the Jānībighā inscription (*Lakshmaṇa-senasy=ātītarājye saṁ* 83) possibly furnishes us with a parallel.¹

c18.s2.10

¹ JRAS, 1913, 1003, 1010.

c18.s2.11

² For Fleet's interpretation of "*Sa 136 ayasa ashaḍasa masasa, etc.,*" see *JRAS*, 1914, 995 ff.; also *Calcutta Review*, 1922, December, 493-494. S. Konow thought at one time that *ayasa* stood for *ādyasya* (=the first). He took the word as qualifying *ashaḍasa*. But he changed his views after the discovery of the Kalawān Inscription of 134. He now thinks that the addition *ayasa*, *ajasa* does not characterize the era as instituted by Azes, but simply as 'connected with Parthian rulers' (*Ep. Ind.*, xxi. 255 f.). He refers the dates 134, 136 to the era of 58 B.C.

c18.s2.12

¹ Raychaudhuri, *Studies in Indian Antiquities*, pp. 165 f.

c18.s2.13

The Greek principality in the Upper Kābul Valley had apparently ceased to exist when Apollonios travelled in India. We learn from Justin that the Parthians gave the *coup de grace* to the rule of the Bactrian Greeks. Marshall says² that the Kābul valley became a bone of contention between the Parthians and the Kushāns. This is quite in accordance with the evidence of Philostratos who refers to the perpetual quarrel of the "barbarians" with the Parthian king of the Indian borderland in 43-44 A.D.

c18.s2.14

² *ASI*, *AR*, 1929-30. 56 ff.

c18.s2.15

With Gondophernes were associated as subordinate rulers his nephew Abdagases (in S. Afghanistān), his generals Aspavarman and Sasa(s) or Sasa(n), and his governors Sapedana and Satavastra (probably of Taxila).

c18.s2.16

After the death of the great Parthian monarch his empire split up into smaller principalities. One of these (probably Sīstan) was ruled by Sanabares, another (probably embracing Kandahār and the Western Pañjāb) by Pakores, and others by princes whose coins Marshall recovered for the first time at Taxila. Among them was Sasa(s) or Sasa(n) who acknowledged the nominal sway of Pakores. The internecine strife among these Parthian princelings is probably reflected in the following passage of the *Periplus* :—

c18.s2.17

"Before it (Barbaricum) there lies a small island and inland behind it is the metropolis of Scythia, Minnagara ; it is subject to Parthian princes who are constantly driving each other out."

c18.s2.18

Epigraphic (and in some cases numismatic) evidence proves that the Pahlava or Parthian rule in Afghanistān, the Pañjāb and Sind was supplanted by that of the Kushaṇa, Gushaṇa, Khushaṇa or **Kushān**¹ dynasty. We know that Gondophernes was ruling in Peshāwar in the year 103 (A.D. 47 according to Fleet, somewhat earlier according to others). But we learn from the Panjtar inscription that in the year 122 the sovereignty of the region had passed to a Gushaṇa or Kushān king.² In the year 136 the Kushān suzerainty had extended to Taxila. An inscription of that year mentions the interment of some relics of the Buddha in a chapel at Taxila "*for bestowal of perfect health upon the Mahārāja, rājātirāja devaputra Khushaṇa.*" The Sui Vihār and Mahenjo Daro Kharoshṭhī Inscriptions prove the Kushān conquest of the Lower Indus Valley. The Chinese writer Pan-ku, who died in A.D. 92, refers to the Yueh-chi occupation of Kao-fou or Kābul. This shows that the race to which the Kushāns belonged took possession of Kābul before A. D. 92. It is, no doubt, asserted by a later writer that Kao-fou is a mistake for Tou-mi. But the mistake in Kennedy’s opinion would not have been possible, had the Yueh-chi not been in possession of Kao-fou in the time of Pan-ku.¹ The important thing to remember is that a Chinese writer of 92 A.D., thought Kao-fou to have been a Yueh-chi possession long before his time. If Sten Konow is to be believed, the Kushāns had established some sort of connection with the Indian borderland as early as the time of Gondophernes. In line 5 of the Takht-i-Bāhī inscription Sten Konow reads “*erjhuṇa Kapasa puyae*,”² “in honour of prince Kapa,” *i.e.*, Kujūla Kadphises, the Kushān king, who is said to have succeeded Hermaios in the Kābul valley. Kujūla Kadphises has been identified with the Kuei-shuang (Kushān) prince K’iu-tsiu-k‘io who took possession of Kao-fou (Kābul), Po-ta and Ki-pin. It appears from numismatic evidence that this Kushān chief³ was possibly an ally of Hermaios with whom he appears to have issued joint coins.⁴ Kadphises seems also to have been at first on friendly terms with the Parthian rulers of Gandhāra. But the destruction of Hermaios' kingdom by the Parthians¹ probably supplied him with a *casus belli*. He made war on the latter and eventually destroyed their power in the north-west borderland of India.

c18.s2.19

¹ For a note on the dynastic nomenclature, see R. Schafer, *JAOS*, 67. 4. p. 296 ff.; *cf. AOS*, 65. 71 ff.

c18.s2.20

² We learn from Philostratos that already in the time of Apollonios (A.D. 43-44) the barbarians (Kushāns?) who lived on the border of the Parthian kingdom of Taxila were perpetually quarrelling with Phraotes and making raids into his territories (*The Life of Apollonius*, Loeb Classical Library, pp. 183 ff.).

c18.s2.21

¹ *JRAS*, 1912, pp. 676-678. Note also Pan-ku’s reference to a man’s head on the coins of Ki-pin (*JRAS*, 1912, p. 685 n.) which possibly suggests an acquaintance with the coinage of Kuyula Kaphsa (or Kasa?).

First 143 of 294 passages. Read on

Linked texts (30)