Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c18.s3: Section III. The Great Kushāns

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c18.s3

Language
English

Section III. The Great Kushāns

c18.s3.1

We are informed by the Chinese historians that the Kushāns (chiefs of the Kuei-shuang or Kouei-chouang principality) were a section of the Yueh-chi (Yüe-chï) race. The modern Chinese pronounciation of the name according to Kingsmill is said to be Yué-ti. M. Lévi and other French scholars write Yue-tchi or Yué-tchi.

c18.s3.2

We learn from Ssū-ma-ch'ien (the Chinese annalist, who recorded the story of the travels of Chang-k'ien, the famous envoy), that between B.C. 174 and 165 the Yueh-chi were dwelling between the Tsenn-hoang (Tun-huang) country and the K'i-lien mountains, or Tien-chan Range, south and east of Lake Issykul in Chinese Turkestan.¹ At that date the Yueh-chi were defeated and expelled from their country by the Hiung-nū who slew their king and made a drinking vessel out of his skull. The widow of the slain ruler succeeded to her husband's power. Under her guidance the Yueh-chi in the course of their westward migration attacked the Wu-sun whose king was killed.² After this exploit the Yueh-chi attacked the Śakas on the upper Ili and in the plains of the Jaxartes or the Syr Darya and compelled their king or 'lord' to seek refuge in Kipin (Kāpiśa-Lampāka-Gandhāra).³

c18.s3.3

¹ Smith says (EHI⁴, p. 263) that they occupied land in the Kansuh Province in North-Western China. See also *CHI*, 565; Halfen, *J. Am. Or. Soc.* 65. pp. 71 ff. For the Hiung-nū-Hun Problem, *cf.* Stein, IA, 1905, 73 f, 84.

c18.s3.4

² The main section of the Yuch-chi passed on westwards beyond Lake Issykkūl, the rest diverged to the South and settled on the frontier of Tibet. The latter came to be known as the "Little Yueh-chi". Eventually they established their capital at Purushapura in Gandhāra. Smith, EHI⁴, 264; S. Konow, *Corpus*, II. i. lxxvi.

c18.s3.5

³ A part of the Śaka horde apparently seized Ferghana (Ta Yuan) c. 128 B.C. (Tarn, *Greeks*, 276 n. 4, 279).

c18.s3.6

Meantime the son of the slain Wu-sun king grew up to manhood and, with the assistance of the Hiung-nū drove the Yueh-chi further west into the Ta-hia territory washed by the Oxus. The Ta-hia, who were devoted to commerce, unskilled in war and wanting in cohesion, were easily reduced to a condition of vassalage by the Yueh-chi who established their capital or royal encampment to the north of the Oxus (Wei), in the territory now belonging to Bukhārā (in ancient Sogdiana). The Yueh-chi capital was still in the same position when visited by Chang-kien in or about B.C. 128-26.¹

c18.s3.7

¹ *JRAS*, 1903, pp. 19-20; 1912, pp. 668 ff.; *JAOS*, 1917, pp. 89 ff.; Whitehead, 171; *CHI*, 459, 566, 701; Tarn, *Greeks*, 84, 274 n, 277; S. Konow, *Corpus*, II. i. xxii-xxiii, liv, lxii.

c18.s3.8

The adventures of Chang-k'ien as related by Ssū-ma-ch'ien in the *Sse-ke* or *Shi-ki* (completed before B.C. 91) were retold in Pan-ku's *Ts'ien Han-shu* or *Annals of the First Han Dynasty* that dealt with the period B.C. 206—A.D. 9 or 24, and was completed by Pan-ku's sister after his death in A.D. 92, with three important additions, namely:—

c18.s3.9

1. That the kingdom of the Ta-Yueh-chi had for its capital the town of Kien-chi (Kien-she), to the north of the Oxus,² and Kipin lay on its southern frontier.

c18.s3.10

² *Cf. Corpus*, II. i. liv.

c18.s3.11

2. That the Yueh-chi were no longer nomads.

c18.s3.12

3. That the Yueh-chi kingdom had become divided into five principalities, *viz.*, Hi (eo)u-mi (possibly Wakhān³ between the Pamirs and the Hindukush), Chouangmi or Shuang-mi (Chitral, south of Wakhān and the Hindukush) Kouei-chouang or Kuei-shuang, the Kushān principality, probably situated between Chitral and the Panjshir country, Hit(h)um (Parwān on the Panjshir) and Kao-fou (Kābul).¹

c18.s3.13

³ A *Bakanapati*, apparently lord of Wakhān, figures in the inscription of *Mahārāja rājātirāja devaputra Kushānaputra Shāhi* Vamataksha(ma?) whose identity is uncertain. The title *devaputra* connects him with the Kanishka Group of Kushān kings, and not the Kadphises Group. *ASI*, 1911-12, Pt. I, 15; 1930-34, Pt. 2, 288.

c18.s3.14

¹ A later historian regards Kao-fou as a mistake for Tou-mi which, however, was probably not far from Kābul, *JRAS*, 1912, 669. For the proposed identifications see *Corpus*, II. i. lvi. *Cf. JRAS*, 1903, 21; 1912, 669. In *Ep. Ind.*, XXI, 258, S. Konow suggests the identification of Kuei-shuang with Gandhāra or the country immediately to its north.

c18.s3.15

We next obtain a glimpse of the Yueh-chi in Fan-Ye's *Hou Han-shu* or *Annals of the Later Han Dynasty* which cover the period between A.D. 25 and 220. Fan-Ye based his account on the report of Pan-young (*cir.* A.D. 125) and others.² He himself died in 445 A.D. The capital of the Yueh-chi was then probably the old Ta-hia (Bactrian) city of Lan-shi, variant Ch'in-shi³, to the north of the Oxus. Fan-Ye gives the following account of the Yueh-chi conquest:

c18.s3.16

² *Cf.* S. Konow, *Corpus*, liv: "It is accordingly the events of the period A.D. 25-125 which are narrated by Fan-Ye, though there are some additions referring to a somewhat later time in the case of countries which were near enough to remain in contact with China after the reign of emperor Ngan" (107-25). See also *Ep. Ind.*, XXI, 258.

c18.s3.17

³ Alexandria=Zariaspa or Bactria (Tarn, *Greeks*, 115, 298). *JAOS*, 61 (1941), 242 n.

c18.s3.18

"In old days the Yue-chi were vanquished by the Hiung-nū. They then went to Ta-hia and divided the kingdom among five *Hsi-h(e)ou* or *Yabgous*,⁴ *viz.*, those of Hsiumi, Shuang-mi, Kuei-shuang, Hsitun and Tumi. More than hundred years after that, the *hsi-hou* or *Yabgou* (*Yavuga*) of Kuei-shuang (Kushān) named K'iu-tsiu-k'io attacked and annihilated the four other *hsi-hou* and made himself king or lord (*Wang*); he invaded Ngan-si (the Arsakid territory, *i.e.*, Parthia) and took possession of the territory of Kao-fou (Kābul), overcame Po-ta⁵ and Ki-pin and became complete master of these kingdoms. K'iu-tsiu-k'io died at the age of more than eighty. His son Yen-kao-tchen succeeded him as king. In his turn he conquered T'ien-tchou (lit. 'India,' on the banks of a great river, apparently the kingdom of Taxila referred to by Philostratos), and established there a chief for governing it. From this time the Yue-chi became extremely powerful. All the other countries designated them Kushān after their king, but the Han retained the old name, and called them Ta-Yue-chi."

c18.s3.19

⁴ According to one view the five *hsi-hou* existed already in Ta-hia when the Yueh-chi invaded Bactria (*JAOS*, 65. 72 f.).

c18.s3.20

⁵ Perhaps identical with the country of Po-tai which, in the time of Sung-yun, sent two young lions to the King of Gandhāra as present (Beal, *Records of the Western World*, Vol. I, ci). S. Konow (*Ep. Ind.*, XVIII) identified P'u-ta with Ghazni, but later on (*Ep. Ind.*, XXI, 258) suggested its identification with Butkhāk, ten miles east of Kābul.

c18.s3.21

"K'iu-tsiu-k'io" has been identified with **Kujula**¹ **Kadphises (I)**,² or Kozola Kadaphes, the first Kushān king who struck coins to the south of the Hindukush. Numismatic evidence suggests that he was the colleague or ally,³ and afterwards the successor, of Hermaios, the last Greek prince of the Kābul valley. The former view that Kadphises conquered Hermaios is, in the opinion of Marshall, wrong. Sten Konow finds his name mentioned in the Takht-i-Bāhī inscription of the year 103 belonging to the reign of Gondophernes.⁴ The inscription probably belongs to a period when the Kushān and Parthian rulers were on friendly terms. But the Parthian attack on the kingdom of Hermaios apparently led to a rupture which ended in war. The result was that the Parthians were ousted by Kadphises I.

c18.s3.22

¹ *Cf.* *Kusuluka*. The expression probably means 'strong' or *beautiful* (S. Konow, *Corpus*, 1). According to Burrow (*The Language of the Kharoshṭhī Documents*, 82, 87) *Kujula*=*Guśura*=*Vazir*. Dr. Thomas (possibly) thinks that the word *Kujula* has the sense of 'Saviour'.

c18.s3.23

² Pahlavi *Kad* = chief + *pises* or *pes* = form, shape, *JRAS*, 1913, 632 n.

c18.s3.24

³ Fleet and Thomas, *JRAS*, 1913, 967, 1034; in the opinion of some scholars Hermaios was dead at the time of the Kushān conquest. Coins bearing his name continued, according to this view, to be struck long after he had passed away. Tarn regards the Hermaios-Kadphises coins as "pedigree coins". His view is not accepted by Bachhofer (*JAOS*, 61. 240 n). Supporters of the 'alliance' theory may point to the gold dollars circulating in Chungking engraved with relief portraits of Marshal Chiang Kaishek and President Roosevelt of the United States (*A. B. Patrika*, 29-3-1945).

c18.s3.25

⁴ The interpretation of S. Konow is not accepted by Professor Rapson, *JRAS*, 1930, p. 189.

c18.s3.26

Marshall identifies Kadphises I with the Kushān king of the Panjtar record (of the year 122) and the Taxila scroll of the year 136.¹ We should, however, remember that in the Taxila inscription of 136 the Kushān king is called *Devaputra*, a title which was characteristic of the Kanishka group and *not* of Kadphises I or II unless we identify Kadphises I with Kuyula Kara Kaphsa.² The monogram on the scroll is by no means characteristic only of coins of the Kadphises group, but it is also found, in Marshall's and S. Konow's opinion, on the coins of Zeionises and Kuyula Kara Kaphsa. If, however, S. Konow and Marshall are right in reading the name of Uvima Kavthisa in the Khalatse inscription of the year 184 or 187, and in identifying him with Vima Kadphises, the king of the Panjtar and Taxila records of 122 and 136 may have been a predecessor of Wema (Vima), and should preferably be identified with Kadphises I. But the reading 'Uvima Kavthisa' and his identification with Kadphises II are by no means certain.

c18.s3.27

¹ *JRAS*, 1914, pp. 977-78; Rapson, *CHI*, 582, identifies the Kushān king of 136 with Vima (i.e., Kadphises II).

c18.s3.28

² Mentioned by R. D. Banerji, *Prāchīna Mudrā*, p. 85. I cannot vouch for the correctness of the reading.

c18.s3.29

Kadphises I probably coined no gold but only copper. His coinage shows unmistakable influence of Rome.³ He copied the issues of Augustus or those of his immediate successors preferably Claudius (A. D. 41-54),¹ and used the titles *Yavuga* (chief), *Mahārāja*, *Rājātirāja* (the great king, the king of kings) and "*Sachadhrama thita*", "Steadfast in the True Faith" (of the Buddha ?).²

c18.s3.30

³ In one class of his copper coins appears a Roman head which was palpably imitated from that of Augustus (B.C. 27-A.D. 14), Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), or Claudius (A.D. 41-54). *JRAS*, 1912, 679; 1913, 912; Smith, *Catalogue*, 66; *Camb. Short Hist.*, 74. Rome and its people, Romakas, first appear in the *Mahābhārata* (II. 51, 17) and occur not unfrequently in later literature. Diplomatic relations between Rome and India were established as early as the time of Augustus who received an embassy from king 'Pandion' (*JRAS*, 1860, 309 ff. *Camb. Hist. Ind.* I. 597.) about B.C. 27-20. An Indian embassy was also received by Trajan (A.D. 98-117) shortly after A.D. 99. Strabo, Pliny and the Periplus refer to a brisk trade between India and the Roman Empire in the first century A.D. See *JRAS*, 1904, 591; *IA*, 5. 281; 1923, 50. Pliny deplores the drain of specie (*JRAS*, 1912, 986; 1913, 644-1031).

c18.s3.31

¹ *The Cambridge Shorter History*, 74, 75.

c18.s3.32

² Smith, *Catalogue*, 67 n.; S. Konow, *Corpus*, II. i. lxiv f.; Whitehead, 181.

c18.s3.33

"K'iu-tsiu-k'io," or Kadphises I, was succeeded by his son **Yen-kao-tchen**, the Vima, Wima or Wema Kadphises of the coins, who is usually designated as **Kadphises II**. We have already seen that he conquered Tien-tchou or the Indian interior, probably Taxila, and set up a chief who governed in the name of the Yueh-Chi. According to Sten Konow³ and Smith⁴ it was Kadphises II who established the Śaka Era of A.D. 78. If this view be accepted then he was possibly the overlord of Nahapāna, and was the Kushān monarch who was defeated by the Chinese between A.D. 73 and 102 and compelled to pay tribute to the emperor Ho-ti (A.D. 89-105). But there is no direct evidence that Kadphises II established any era. No inscription or coin of this monarch contains any date which is referable to an *era of his institution*. On the contrary we have evidence that Kanishka did establish an era, that is to say, his method of dating was continued by his successors, and we have dates ranging probably from the year 1 to 99.⁵

c18.s3.34

³ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 141.

c18.s3.35

⁴ *The Oxford History of India*, p. 128.

c18.s3.36

⁵ For criticism of the "Omitted hundreds theory," see *JRAS*, 1913, 980 f.

c18.s3.37

The conquests of the Kadphises kings opened up the path of commerce between China and the Roman Empire and India. Roman gold began to pour into this country in payment for silk, spice and gems. Kadphises II began to issue gold coins.⁶ He had a bilingual gold and copper coinage.¹ The obverse design gives us a new lifelike representation of the monarch. The reverse is confined to the worship of Śiva, which was gaining ground since the days of the *Śiva-Bhāgavatas* mentioned by Patañjali.² In the Kharoshṭhī inscription Kadphises II is called "the great king, the king of kings, lord of the whole world, the *Mahiśvara*, the defender."³

c18.s3.38

⁶ A gold coin of Wima or Vima (*NC*, 1934, 232), gives him the title *Basileus Basilewn Soter Megas* (Tarn, *Greeks*, 354 n 5). This throws welcome light on the problem of the identification of the nameless king Soter Megas.

c18.s3.39

¹ A silver piece resembling the ordinary small copper type of Vima Kadphises is also known (Whitehead, *Indo-Greek Coins*, 174). Other silver coins of the monarch are apparently referred to by Marshall (*Guide to Taxila*, 1918, 81). A silver coin of Kanishka is also known (*ASI, AR*, 1925-26, pl. lxf). Smith (*EHI⁴*, p. 270) and others make mention of silver coins of Huvishka.

c18.s3.40

² V. 2. 76; *cf*. Śaiva, Pāṇini, IV. 1. 112.

c18.s3.41

³ As already stated Sten Konow finds the name of Vima (Uvima) Kavthisa (Kadphises?) in the Khalatse (Ladakh) inscription of the year 187(?). *Corpus*, II. i. 81. The identity of the King in question is, however, uncertain.

c18.s3.42

We learn from Yu-Houan, the author of the *Wei-lio*⁴ which was composed between A.D. 239-265 and covers the period of the Wei down to the reign of the emperor Ming (227-239),⁵ that the Yueh-chi power was flourishing in Kipin (Kāpiśa-Gandhāra), Ta-hia (Oxus valley), Kao-fou (Kābul) and Tien-tchou (India) as late as the second quarter of the third century A.D. But the early Chinese annalists are silent about the names of the successors of Yen-kao-tchen (Kadphises II). Chinese sources, however, refer to a king of the Ta-Yueh-chi named Po-tiao or Puā-d'ieu (possibly Vāsudeva) who sent an embassy to the Chinese emperor in the year 230.⁶ Inscriptions discovered in India have preserved the names with dates of the following great Kushān sovereigns besides the Kadphises group, viz., **Kanishka I** (1-23),⁷ Vāsishka (24-28),⁸ Huvishka (28-60),¹ Kanishka II, son of Vā-jheshka (41), and Vāsudeva (67-98).² Huvishka, Vā-jheshka and Kanishka II are probably referred to by Kalhaṇa as Hushka, Jushka and Kanishka who apparently ruled conjointly. It will be seen that Kanishka II ruled in the year 41, a date which falls within the reign of Huvishka (28-60). Thus the account of Kalhaṇa is confirmed by epigraphic evidence.

c18.s3.43

⁴ *A History of the Wei Dynasty* (A.D. 220-264).

c18.s3.44

⁵ *Corpus*, II, i. lv.

c18.s3.45

⁶ *Corpus*, II, i. lxxvii.

c18.s3.46

⁷ See *JRAS*, 1913, 980; 1924, p. 400. "*Three Mathurā Inscriptions and their bearing on the Kushān Dynasty*" by Dayārām Sahni; and *IHQ*, Vol. *II (1927), p. 853, "*Further Kanishka Notes*" by Sten Konow. *Ep. Ind.*, XXIV. 210.

c18.s3.47

⁸ If Vāsishka be identical with Vas Kushāṇa of a Sāñchī epigraph, his reign (as sub-king) commenced not later than the year 22 as we learn from an inscription of that year on the pedestal of an image of the Buddha (*Pro. of the Seventh Session of the I. H. Congress*, Madras, p. 135).

c18.s3.48

¹ *See Ep. Ind.*, XXI, 55 ff.—*Mathurā Brāhmī Inscription of the Year 28*. *Cf. Ep Ind.*, xxiii, 35—*Hidda Inscription of 28*.

c18.s3.49

² *Hyd. Hist. Cong.*, 164.

c18.s3.50

In the chronological order generally accepted by numismatists, the Kanishka group succeeded the Kadphises group. But this view is not accepted by many scholars. Moreover, there is little agreement even among scholars who place the Kanishka group after the Kadphises kings. The more important theories of Kanishka’s date are given below:

c18.s3.51

1. According to Dr. Fleet, Kanishka reigned *before* the Kadphises group, and was the founder of that reckoning, commencing B.C. 58, which afterwards came to be known as the Vikrama Samvat.³ This view (held at one time by Cunningham and Dowson, and maintained by Franke) was accepted by Kennedy, but was ably controverted by Dr. Thomas, and can no longer be upheld after the discoveries of Marshall.¹ Inscriptions, coins as well as the testimony of Hiuen Tsang clearly prove that Kanishka's dominions included Gandhāra, but we have already seen that according to Chinese evidence Yin-mo-fu, and not the Kushāns, ruled Kipin (Kāpiśa-Gandhāra) in the second half of the first century B.C. Allan thinks that "the gold coinage of Kanishka was suggested by the

c18.s3.52

³ For discussions about the origin of the so-called Vikrama era see *JRAS.*, 1913, pp. 637, 994 ff.; Kielhorn in *Ind. Ant.*. xx. (1891), 124 ff.; 397 ff.; *Bhand. Com. Vol.*, pp. 187 ff. *CHI.* pp. 168, 533, 571; *ZDMG.*, 1922, pp. 250 ff. *Ep. Ind.* xxiii. 48 ff.; xxvi. 119 ff.; Kielhorn (and now Altekar) adduce evidence which seems to show that the early use of the era, as may be inferred from records with dates that may be recognised to refer to this reckoning, was mainly confined to Southern and Eastern Rājputāna, Central India and the Upper Ganges Valley. The name of the era found in the earliest inscriptions recalls designations like that of king KṚITA o Penzer, *The Ocean of Story*, III, 19. Kṛitiya rulers are mentioned by Fleet, *JRAS.*, 1913, 998n. Kṛita may also have reference to the inauguration of a Golden Age after a period of toil and moil. From the fifth to the ninth century the reckoning was believed to be used

c18.s3.53

¹ Thomas, *JRAS*, 1913; Marshall, *JRAS*, 1914.

c18.s3.54

especially by the princes and people of Mālava. The connection of the name Vikrama with the era grew up gradually and was far from being *generally* adopted *even* in the ninth century A.D. The phraseology employed in the poems and inscriptions of the next centuries shows a gradual advance from the simple *Samvat* to *Vikrama Samvat, Śrīnṛipa Vikrama Samvat* and so on. The change in nomenclature was probably brought about by the princes and people of Gujarāt whose hostility to the Mālavas is well known. The Sātavāhanas could not have founded this or any other era because they always used regnal years, and Indian literature distinguishes between Vikrama and Śālivāhana. As to the claims of Azes, see *Calcutta Review*, 1922, December, pp. 493-494. Fleet points out (*JRAS*, 1914, 995 ff.) that even when the name of a real king stands before the statement of the years, so that the translation would be "in the year of such and such a king" he is not necessarily to be regarded as the actual founder of that particular reckoning. The nomenclature of an era, current in a comparatively late period, more than a century after its commencement, is no proof of origins. Therefore, the use of the terms *Ayasa* or *Ajasa* in connection with the dates 134 and 136 of the Kalawan and Taxila inscriptions, does not prove that Azes was the founder of the particular reckoning used. His name may have been connected with the reckoning by later generations in the same way as the name of the Valabhī family came to be associated with the Gupta era, that of Sātavāhana with the Śaka era, and that of Vikrama with the "Kṛita"-Mālava reckoning itself which commenced in 58 B.C. Regarding the claims of Vikrama see *Bhand. Com. Vol.* and *Ind. Ant.*, cited above. The Purāṇas while mentioning Gardabhilla are silent about Vikramāditya. Jaina tradition places Vikramāditya after 'Nahavāhana, or Nahapāna. Regarding the contention of Fleet that the Vikrama era is a *northern* reckoning attention may be invited to the observations of Kielhorn and to a note on *Chola-Pāṇḍya Institutions* contributed by Professor C. S. Srinivasachari to *The Young Men of India*, July, 1926. The Professor points out that the era was used in Madura in the 5th century A.D. Kielhorn proves conclusively that the area where the era of 58 B.C. was used in the earliest times did not include the extreme north-west of India.

c18.s3.55

Roman *solidus*'' and that the Kushān monarch can hardly be placed before Titus (79-81 A.D.) and Trajan (98-117 A.D.).¹

c18.s3.56

¹ *Camb. Short History*, p. 77.

c18.s3.57

**2.** According to Marshall, Sten Konow, Smith and several other scholars Kanishka's rule began about 125 or 144 A.D.,² and ended in the second half of the second century A.D.³ Now, we learn from the Sui Vihār inscription that Kanishka's dominions included a portion at least of the Lower Indus Valley. Again we learn from the Junāgaḍh inscription of Rudradāman that the *Mahākshatrapa's* conquests extended to Sindhu and Sauvīra (which included Multān according to the Purāṇas and Alberuni) and even to the land of the Yaudheyas in the direction of the Sutlej. Rudradāman certainly flourished from A.D. 130 to A.D. 150. He did not owe his position as *Mahākshatrapa* to anybody else (*svayam adhigata Mahākshatrapa nāma*).⁴ If Kanishka reigned in the middle of the second century A.D., how are we to reconcile his mastery over the Sui Vihār region in the Lower Indus Valley with the contemporary sovereignty of Rudradāman?¹ Again Kanishka's dates 1-23, Vāsishka's dates 24-28, Huvishka's dates 28-60, and Vāsudeva's dates 67-98, suggest a continuous reckoning. In other words, Kanishka was the originator of an era. But we know of no era ever current in, or known to, North-West India, which commenced in the second century A.D.

c18.s3.58

² Recently Ghirshman suggested the period A.D. 144-72 for Kanishka (*Begram, Recherches Archaeologique et Historiques sur les Kouchans*). The argument that India was still in A.D. 125 governed by a Viceroy (and therefore, not by Kanishka or Huvishka) is effectively disposed of by Thomas in *JRAS*, 1913, 1024. He points out that the historian of the Later Han is obviously referring to the conditions at the time of the invasion of Wima Kadphises, and not to the state of things in A.D. 125.

c18.s3.59

³ Dr. Sten Konow's views are difficult to ascertain. In the *Indian Studies in honour of C. R. Lanman* (Harvard University Press), p. 65, he mentions A.D. 134 as the initial point of the Kanishka reckoning which he and Dr. Van Wijk "have tried to establish" (*cf. Acta Orientalia*, III, 54 ff.). But in *IHQ*, III (1927), p. 851, he, along with Dr. Van Wijk, shows a predilection for A.D. 128-29 (*cf. Corpus*, lxxvii; *Acta Orientalia*, V, 168 ff.). Professor Rapson (in *JRAS*, 1930, 186 ff.) points out the conjectural and inconclusive character of the two Doctors' calculations. "The year 79," says he, "seems to be out of the running and a dark horse, the year 128-9, is the favourite."

c18.s3.60

⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, VIII, 44.

c18.s3.61

¹ See *IHQ*, March, 1930, 149.

c18.s3.62

3. Dr. R. C. Majumdar thought that the era founded by Kanishka was the Traikuṭaka-Kalachuri-Chedi era of 248 A.D.² Prof. Jouveau-Dubreuil points out that this is not possible.³ "In fact, the reign of Vāsudeva, the last of the Kushāns, came to an end 100 years after the beginning of the reign of Kanishka. Numerous inscriptions prove that Vāsudeva reigned at Mathurā. It is certain that this country, over which extended the empire of Vāsudeva, was occupied about 350 A.D. by the Yaudheyas and the Nāgas and it is probable that they reigned in this place nearly one century before they were subjugated by Samudragupta. The capitals of the Nāgas were Mathurā, Kāntipura and Padmāvatī." The Kushān (?) realm in the Indian borderland was, in A.D. 360, ruled by Grumbates.⁴ The theory of Dr. Majumdar cannot, moreover, be reconciled with the Tibetan tradition which makes Kanishka a contemporary of king Vijayakīrti of Khotan,⁵ and the Indian tradition which makes Huvishka a contemporary of Nāgārjuna, and hence of a king of the Imperial Sātavāhana line, who can hardly be placed later than the second century A.D., as he is described as 'lord of the three seas' and sovereign of (South) Kośala (in the Upper Deccan).¹ Lastly, the catalogues of the Chinese Tripiṭaka state that An-Shih-Kāo (148-170 A.D.) translated the *Mārgabhūmi Sūtra* of Saṅgharaksha who was the chaplain of Kanishka.² This shows conclusively that Kanishka flourished before 170 A.D.³ The arguments against the theory of Dr. Majumdar are equally applicable to the surmise of Sir R. G. Bhandarkar who placed Kanishka's accesssion in A.D. 278.

c18.s3.63

² For this era see *JRAS*, 1905, pp. 566-68.

c18.s3.64

³ *Ancient History of the Deccan*, p. 31.

c18.s3.65

⁴ *EHI*⁴, p. 290. The Chionitai identified by Cunningham with Kushāns.

c18.s3.66

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 142.

c18.s3.67

¹ *Rājātaraṅgiṇī*, I. 173; *Harsha-charita* (Cowell), p. 252; Watters, *Yuan-Chwang*, II, p. 200. The epithet *trisamudrādhipati* which the *Harsha-charita* (Book VIII) applies to the Sātavāhana friend of Nāgārjuna cannot fail to remind cne of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi 'whose chargers drank the water of the three oceans' (*tisamudatoyapītavāhana*), or one of his immediate successors.

c18.s3.68

² Eliot, *Hinduism and Buddhism*, II, p. 64n. Bunyiu Nanjio's *Catalogue*, App. II, 4.

c18.s3.69

³ According to the theory of Dr. Majumdar, Vāsudeva I ruled from (249+74) 323 to (249+98) 347 A.D. But Chinese evidence places a Po-t'iao (Vāsudeva?) in 230 A.D. The Khalatse Ins. also presents difficulties.

c18.s3.70

4. According to Fergusson, Oldenberg, Thomas, Banerji, Rapson, J. E. Van Lohuizen-De Leeuw, Bachhofer and many other scholars Kanishka was the founder of that reckoning commencing A.D. 78, which came to be known as the *Śaka era*.⁴ This view is not accepted by Prof. Jouveau-Dubreuil on the following grounds:—

c18.s3.71

⁴ For the origin of the *Śaka era* see Fleet, *CII*, preface 56; *JRAS*, 1913, pp. 635, 650, 987 ff.; Dubreuil, *AHD*, 26; Rapson *Andhra Coins*, p. cv; S. Konow, *Corpus*, II. i. xvi f. Nahapāna, who was not even a *Mahākshatrapa* in the years 42-45, and who never became a paramount sovereign, could not possibly have been the founder of the era. The theory which represents Nahapāna as the founder of the era used in his inscriptions (dated 42-46) is also contradicted by a Jaina tradition (relied on by Sten Konow, *Corpus*, II. i. xxxviii) which assigns to him (Nahavāhana) a period of only 40 years. Chashṭana has no better claims and the evidence of the Periplus shows that he could not have ruled at Ujjain in 78 A.D. As to the theory that Kadphises II founded the reckoning in question, it may be pointed out that no inscription or coin of this monarch contains any date which is referable to an era of his institution. The only Scythian king who did establish an era in the sense that he used a regnal reckoning that was continued by his successors, is Kanishka. And the only reckoning that is attributed by Indian writers, since the days of the early Chalukyas, to a Scythian king is the *Śaka era* of 78 A.D. Regarding the objection that the Śaka era was foreign to the north it may be pointed out that the era of 58 B.C., was equally foreign to the extreme north-west of India. The assertion that the Śaka era was never used in the north-west simply begs the question. It assumes what it has got to prove, *viz*., that the reckoning used by the house of Kanishka does not refer to the Śaka era. The very name Śaka points to its foreign, and possibly north-western, origin, as the imperial Śakas resided in that region, and it is only the viceroys who dwelt in Mālwa Kāthiāwār and the Deccan. On the analogy of every famous Indian regnal reckoning it may be confidently asserted that the Śaka era, too, originated with a sovereign and not with a mere viceroy.

c18.s3.72

(*a*) If we admit that Kujūla-Kadphises and Hermaios reigned about 50 A.D. and that Kanishka founded the Śaka era in 78 A.D. we have scarcely 28 years for the duration of the end of the reign of Kadphises I and the whole of the reign of Kadphises II.

c18.s3.73

(But the date, A.D. 50, for Kadphises I is uncertain. Even if we accept it as correct, the period of 28 years is not too short in view of the fact that Kadphises II succeeded an octogenerian. When Kadphises I died "at the age of more than eighty" his son must have been an old man. It is, therefore, improbable that "his reign was protracted.")

c18.s3.74

(*b*) Marshall, says Prof. G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, has discovered at Taxila in the Chir Stūpa a document dated 136 which, in the Vikrama era, corresponds to 79 A.D., and the king mentioned therein is probably Kadphises I, but certainly not Kanishka.

c18.s3.75

(Now, the epithet *Devaputra* applied to the Kushān king of the Taxila scroll of 136, is characteristic of the Kanishka group, and not of the Kadphises kings.¹ So the discovery need not shake the conviction of those that attribute to Kanishka the era of 78 A.D. The omission of the personal name of the Kushān monarch does not necessarily imply that the first Kushān is meant. In several inscriptions of the time of Kumāra Gupta and Budha Gupta, the king is referred to simply as *Gupta nṛipa*.)

c18.s3.76

¹ I am glad to note that a somewhat similar suggestion is now made by Dr. Thomas in Dr. B. C. Law Volume, II. 312. It is, however, by no means clear why it is said that the possibility of the identification of Devaputra with Kanishka 'has been ignored'. The Kadphises kings meant here are Kujūla (Kadphises I), and Vima (Wema) and not Kuyula Kara Kaphsa whose identification with Kadphises I is a mere surmise. *Kara* or *Kala* probably means a Mahārājaputra, a prince (Burrow, *The Language of the Kharoshṭhī Documents*, 82). Even if Kuyula Kara be identical with Kujūla (*cf*. *Corpus*, II, i. lxv) and the Kushān king of the Taxila inscription of 136, it may be pointed out that it is by no means certain that the date 136 refers to the Vikrama era.

c18.s3.77

(*c*) Professor Dubreuil says: "Sten Konow has shown that the Tibetan and Chinese documents tend to prove that Kanishka reigned in the second century."

c18.s3.78

(This Kanishka may have been Kanishka of the Ārā Inscription of the year 41 which, if referred to the Śaka era, would give a date in the second century A.D. Po-t'iao of Sten Konow,¹ the king of the Yueh-chi who sent an ambassador to China in A.D. 230, may have been one of the successors of Vāsudeva I. "Coins bearing the name of Vāsudeva continued to be struck long after he had passed away."² Dr. Smith, Mr. R. D. Banerji and Dr. S. Konow himself clearly recognise the existence of more than one Vāsueva.)³

c18.s3.79

¹ Vāsudeva? *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 141. *Corpus*, II, i, lxxvii; *cf. Acta*, II, 133.

c18.s3.80

² *EHI*, 3rd ed., p. 272.

c18.s3.81

³ *Ibid*, pp. 272-78, *Corpus*, ii, I, lxxvii.

c18.s3.82

(*d*) Sten Konow has also shown that the inscriptions of the Kanishka era and those of the Śaka era are not dated in the same fashion. (But the same scholar also shows that all the inscriptions of the Kanishka era are also not dated in the same fashion. In the *Kharoshṭhī* inscriptions, Kanishka and his successors recorded the dates in the same way as their Śaka-Pahlava predecessors, giving the name of the month and the day within the month. On the other hand, in their *Brāhmī* records Kanishka and his successors usually adopted the Ancient Indian way of dating.¹ Are we to conclude from this that the *Kharoshṭhī* dates of Kanishka's inscriptions are not to be referred to the same era to which the dates of the *Brāhmī* records are to be ascribed? If Kanishka adopted two different ways of dating, we fail to understand why he could not have adopted a third method to suit the local conditions in Western India. Sten Konow himself points out that in the Śaka dates we have the name of the month as in the *Kharoshṭhī* records with addition of the *Paksha*. "The Śaka era which (the Western Kshatrapas) used was a direct imitation of the reckoning used by their cousins in the north-west, the additional mentioning of the 'paksha' being perhaps a concession to the custom in the part of the country where they ruled." It is not improbable that just as Kanishka in the borderland used the old Śaka-Pahlava method, and in Hindusthān Proper used the ancient Indian way of dating prevalent there, so in Western India his officer added the 'paksha' to suit the custom in that part of the country.)²

c18.s3.83

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 141. For an exception see *ibid*, XXI, 60.

c18.s3.84

² As to the statement of Fleet endorsed by S. Konow, *Corpus*, lxxxvii, that the use of the Śaka era was foreign to Northern India attention may be invited to Kielhorn's *List of Ins. of Northern India*, Nos. 351, 352, 362, 364-365, 368, 379, etc. So far as North-West India is concerned there is as little positive proof of the early use of the Vikrama era as of the era of 78 A.D. The paucity of early records dated in the Śaka era in the valley of the Upper Ganges and its tributaries is possibly due to the fact that the era of 58 B.C. already held the field. Later eras of undoubtedly northern origin, like those of the Guptas and Harsha, have practically been forgotten, but the era of 58 B.C. is still in use. In Southern India the case is different. The use of regnal years in the records of the Mauryas (many of which are located in the south) and those of the Sātavāhanas, Chetas, and other early dynasties, proves beyond doubt that there was no early reckoning in use that could compete with the new era that was introduced by the Saka satraps. The story of the foundation of the Chālukya Vikrama era suggests that the Śaka reckoning was at times deliberately sought to be discontinued because of its foreign association. This might have happened in the north as well as in the south.

c18.s3.85

According to Sten Konow Kanishka came from Khotan¹ and belonged to the Little Yüeh-chi. The theory presents many difficulties.² It is certain that his successors in 230 were still known as the Ta (Great?) Yüeh-chi. The family name according to Kumāralāta's *Kalpanāmaṇḍitīkā* was Kiu-sha.³

c18.s3.86

¹ *Corpus*, II, i. lxxvi; *cf.* lxi; *JRAS*, 1903, 334.

c18.s3.87

² *Ibid*, p. lxxvii.

c18.s3.88

³ *Cf.* *Kuśa* of *Kanika lekha* and *Kuśadvīpa* of the *Purāṇas*. See now Shafer, *Linguistics in History*, *JAOS*, 67, No. 4, pp. 296 ff.

c18.s3.89

Kanishka completed the Kushān conquest of Upper India and ruled over a wide realm which extended from Kāpiśa,⁴ Gandhāra and Kaśmīra to Benares. Traditions of his conflict with the rulers of Soked (Sāketa) and Pāṭaliputra in Eastern India are preserved by Tibetan and Chinese writers.⁵ Epigraphic records give us contemporary notices of him, with dates, not only from Peshāwar and possibly from Zeda (near Uṇḍ) in the Yuzufzai country, but also from Māṇikiāla near Rāwalpindi, from Sui Vihār about 16 miles south-west of Bahāwalpur (north of Sind), from Mathurā and Śrāvastī, and from Sārnāth near Benares.⁶ His coins are found in considerable quantities as far eastwards as Ghāzīpur and Gorakhpur.⁷ The eastern portion of his empire was apparently governed by the *Mahā-Kshatrapa* Kharapallāna and the *Kshatrapa* Vanashpara. In the northern portion we find the general Lala and the Satraps Vespasi and Liaka. He fixed his own residence at Peshāwar (Purushapura) and possibly established Kanishkapura¹ in Kaśmīra. It is, however, more probable that Kanishkapura was established by his namesake of the Ārā inscription. After making himself master of the south (*i.e.*, India) Kanishka turned to the west and defeated the king of the Parthians.² In his old age he led an army against the north and died in an attempt to cross the Tsung-ling mountains (Tāghdumbāsh Pāmīr) between the Pāmīr Plateau and Khotan. The Northern expedition is apparently referred to by Hiuen-Tsang who speaks of his rule in the territory to the east of the Tsung-ling mountains, and of a Chinese Prince detained as a hostage at his court.

c18.s3.90

⁴ *Cf.* The story of the Chinese hostage mentioned by H. Tsang.

c18.s3.91

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, xiv, p. 142; *Ind. Ant.*, 1903, p. 382; *Corpus*, II, i, pp. lxxii and lxxv. The reference may be to Kanishka II.

c18.s3.92

⁶ In recent years Mr. K. G. Goswami has drawn attention to a Brāhmī Inscription of Kanishka, dated in the year 2 (?), which he found in the Municipal Museum at Allahabad (*Calcutta Review*, July, 1934, p. 83).

c18.s3.93

⁷ A gold coin from Mahāsthāna (Bogra) represents the standing bearded figure of Kanishka—possibly an imitation of the coinage of the great Kushān king.

c18.s3.94

¹ Cunningham (AGI², 114) located it near Śrīnagar. Stein and Smith identify it with Kānīspor, "situated between the Vitastā river and the high road leading from Varāhamūla to Śrīnagar" (EHI⁴, p. 275).

c18.s3.95

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1903, p. 382.

c18.s3.96

It is not improbable that Kanishka was the Kushān king repulsed by general Pan-ch'ao during the reign of the Emperor Ho-ti (A.D. 89-105). It has no doubt been argued that Kanishka "must have been a monarch of some celebrity and if the Chinese had come into victorious contact with him, their historians would have mentioned it." But if we identify Pan-ch'ao's Kushān contemporary with Kadphises II, the silence of the Chinese becomes still more mysterious and inexplicable because he was certainly well-known to the annalists. On the other hand, Kanishka was not known to them and the non-mention of his name, if he were Pan-ch'ao's contemporary, cannot be more surprising than that of his predecessor, Wema. In favour of Kanishka's identity with Pan-ch'ao's antagonist we may urge that Kanishka is known to have come into conflict with the Chinese, but the same cannot be said with regard to Wema, the events of whose reign, as recorded by Chinese annalists, do not include a first class war with China. The legend of Kanishka's death published by S. Lévi contains a significant passage which runs thus:—"‘I have subjugated three regions; all men have taken refuge with me, the region of the north alone has not come in to make its submission.’"¹ Have we not here a covert allusion to his failure in the encounter with his mighty northern neighbour?

c18.s3.97

¹ EHI⁴, p. 285; *JRAS*, 1912, 674.

c18.s3.98

Kanishka's fame rests not so much on his conquests, as on his patronage of the religion of Śākyamuni. Numismatic evidence and the testimony of the Peshāwar Casket inscriptions show that he actually became a convert to Buddhism possibly at the commencement of his reign, if not earlier. He showed his zeal for his faith by building the celebrated relic tower and Saṅghārāma at Purushapura or Peshāwar which excited the wonder of Chinese and Muslim travellers.² He convoked the last great Buddhist council which was held in Kaśmīra or Jālandhar.³ But though a Buddhist, the Kushān monarch continued to honour the Greek, Sumerian, Elamite, Mithraic, Zoroastrian and Hindu gods worshipped in the various provinces of his far-flung empire.⁴ The court of Kanishka was adorned by Pārśva, Vasumitra, Aśvaghosha,¹ Charaka, Nāgārjuna,² Saṁgharaksha, Māṭhara, Agesilaos the Greek and other worthies who played a leading part in the religious, literary, scientific, philosophical and artistic activities of the reign. Excavations at Māt near Mathurā have disclosed a life-size statue of the great king.³

c18.s3.99

² The fame of the *Kanishka Mahāvihāra* remained undiminished till the days of the Pāla Kings of Bengal as is apparent from the Ghoshrāvan Inscription of the time of Devapāla. Kanishka's *Chaitya* is referred to by Alberuni.

c18.s3.100

³ One account possibly mentions Gandhāra as the place where the Assembly met. The earliest authorities seem to locate it in Kashmir. *Kundalavana vihāra* appears to be the name of the monastery where the theologians assembled probably under the presidency of Vasumitra. The chief business of the Synod seems to be the collection of canonical texts, and the preparation of commentaries on them (Smith, *EHI*⁴, pp. 283 ff; Law, *Buddhistic Studies*, 71).

c18.s3.101

⁴ See JRAS, 1912, pp. 1003, 1004. The Elamite (Sumerian? Hastings, 5, 827) goddess Nana possibly gave her name to the famous Nāṇaka coins (cf. Bhand., Carm. Lec., 1921, p. 161). For the influence of the Mithra (Mihr, Mihira, Miiro) cult on Kushān India, see Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, *Vaishṇavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems*, p. 154. According to Professor Rapson (*Andhra Coins*, xii) the diversity of coin-types does not show religious eclecticism, but reflects the different forms of religion which prevailed in the various districts of the vast empire of the Great Kushāns. *Cf.*, Asāvari and Bednur types of coins of the time of Iltutmish and of Hyder Ali.

c18.s3.102

¹ For the legend about Kanishka and Aśvaghosha see a recent article by H. W. Bailey (JRAS, 1942, pt. I)—trans. with notes of a fragment of a Khotan Ms. The king's name is spelt Cadrra (**Chandra**) Kanishka.

c18.s3.103

² It is possible that Nāgārjuna was a contemporary, not of Kanishka I, but of Kanishka II and Huvishka.

c18.s3.104

³ EHI⁴, p. 272. *Cf.* Coin-portrait, JRAS, 1912, 670.

c18.s3.105

After Kanishka came **Vāsishka**, Huvishka and Kanishka of the Ārā inscription. We have got inscriptions of Vāsishka dated 24 and 28 which possibly prove his control over Mathurā and Eastern Mālwa.⁴ He may have been identical with Vājheshka, the father of Kanishka of the Ārā inscription, and Jushka of the *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, the founder of the town of Jushkapur, modern Zukur to the north of Śrīnagar.⁵

c18.s3.106

⁴ As the Sāñchī images may have been brought from Mathurā, the find-spots need not be regarded as forming necessarily a part of the empire of the king mentioned on the pedestals.

c18.s3.107

⁵ EHI⁴, p. 275.

c18.s3.108

**Huvishka's** dates range from 28 to 60. A Mathurā Inscription⁶ represents him as the grandson of a king who has the appellation "*Sacha dhramaṭhita*," *i.e.*, steadfast or abiding in the true Law, which occurs on the coins of Kuyula Kaphsa.⁷ Kalhaṇa's narrative leaves the impression that Huvishka ruled simultaneously with Jushka and Kanishka, *i.e.*, Vā-jheshka and **Kanishka of the Ārā inscription of the year 41.** The Wardak vase inscription possibly proves the inclusion of Kābul within his dominions. But there is no evidence that he retained his hold on the Lower Indus Valley which was probably wrested from the successors of Kanishka I by Rudradāman I. In Kaśmīra Huvishka built a town named Hushkapura.¹ Like Kanishka I, he was a patron of Buddhism and built a splendid monastery at Mathurā.² He also resembled Kanishka in his taste for a diversity of coin-types. Besides a medley of Greek, Persian and Indian deities we have, on one of his coins, the remarkable figure of Roma.³ A Mathurā inscription refers to the restoration during his reign of a delapidated *Devakula* of his grandfather.

c18.s3.109

⁶ JRAS, 1924, p. 402.

c18.s3.110

⁷ The epithet is also applied to Aṁgoka in the Kkharoshṭhī documents (Burrow, p. 128).

c18.s3.111

¹ It is identified with Ushkūr inside the Bārāmūla Pass (*EHI*⁴, p. 287).

c18.s3.112

² *Cf.* Lüders, List No. 62.

c18.s3.113

³ *Camb. Short Hist.*, 79. Numismatic evidence possibly suggests that the **'lion-standard** was to some of the Great Kushāns what the *Garuḍa-dhvaja* was to their Gupta successors. *Cf.* Whitehead, 196.

c18.s3.114

Smith does not admit that the Kanishka of the Ārā inscription of the year 41 was different from the great Kanishka. Lüders, Fleet, Kennedy and Sten Konow, on the other hand, distinguish between the two Kanishkas.⁴ According to Lüders, Kanishka of the Ārā inscription was a son of Vāsishka and probably a grandson of Kanishka I. Kanishka II had the titles *Mahārāja*, *Rājātirāja*, *Devaputra* and possibly *Kaisara* (Caesar). It is probable that he, and not Kanishka I, was the founder of the town of Kanishkapura in Kaśmīra.

c18.s3.115

⁴ *Cf. Corpus*, II. i. lxxx; 163. Ep. Ind., XIV, p. 143. *JRAS*, 1913, 98. The mention of a distinguishing patronymic in the record of the year 41, and the fact that no inscriptions of Kanishka are known that are referable to the period 24 to 40 of the era used by the family (when the Kushān throne was occupied by Vāsishka and, possibly Huvishka as a junior partner), suggest that Kanishka of the year 41 is not to be identified with Kanishka of the years 1-23.

c18.s3.116

The last notable king of Kanishka’s line was **Vāsudeva I**. His dates range from the year 67¹ to 98, *i.e.*, A.D. 145 to 176 according to the system of chronology adopted in these pages. He does not appear to have been a Buddhist. His coins exhibit the figure of Śiva attended by Nandi. There can be no doubt that he reverted to Śaivism, the religion professed by his great predecessor Kadphises II. A king named Vāsudeva is mentioned in the *Kāvya Mīmāṁsā* as a patron of poets and a *Sabhāpati*, apparently ‘President of a Society’ (of learned men). That the Kushān Age was a period of great literary activity is proved by the works of Aśvaghosha, Nāgārjuna and others. It was also a period of religious ferment and missionary activity. It witnessed the development of Śaivism and the allied cult of Kārttikeya, of the *Mahāyāna* form of Buddhism and the cults of Mihira and of Vāsudeva-Kṛishṇa, and it saw the introduction of Buddhism into China by Kāśyapa Mātaṅga (*c.* 61-68 A.D.). “The dynasty of Kanishka opened the way for Indian civilization to Central and Eastern Asia.”

c18.s3.117

¹ Mr. M. Nagor makes mention of an inscription incised on the base of a stone image of the Buddha acquired from Pālikherā (Mathura Museum, No. 2907; which records the installation of the image in the year 67 during the reign of Vāsudeva.

c18.s3.118

The inscriptions of Vāsudeva have been found only in the Mathurā region. From this it is not unreasonable to surmise that he *gradually* lost his hold over the north-western portion of the Kushān dominions.

c18.s3.119

About the middle of the third century A.D., we hear of the existence of no less than four kingdoms all ‘dependent on the Yueh-chi,’ and ruled probably by princes of the Yue-chi stock.²

c18.s3.120

² *Cf.* Kennedy, *JRAS*, 1913, 1060 f. Among the successors of Vāsudeva I may be mentioned Kanishka (III); Vasu (Whitehead, *Indo-Greek Coins*, pp. 211-12; *cf. RDB*, *JASB*, Vol. IV (1908), 81 ff; Altekar, *NHIP*, VI. 14 n) or Vāsudeva II. who is apparently to be identified with **Po-tiao**, A.D. 230 (*Corpus*, II. i. lxxvii); and Grumbates (?), A.D. 360 (Smith, *EHI*⁴, p. 290). Kings claiming to belong to the family of Kanishka continued to rule in Ki-pin and Gandhāra long after he had passed away (*Itinerary of Oukong*, *Cal. Rev.*, 1922, Aug.-Sept., pp. 193, 489). The last king of Kanishka's race was, according to tradition, Lagatūrmān who was overthrown by his Brāhmaṇa minister Kallar (Alberuni, II, 13). For an alleged invasion of India in the later Kushān period by Ardeshīr Bābagān (A.D. 226-41), the founder of the Sassanian dynasty, see Ferishta (Elliot and Dowson, VI, p. 557). Varhrān II (A.D. 276-93) conquered the whole of Śakasthāna and made his son Varhrān III Governor of the conquered territory. Śakasthāna continued to form a part of the Sassanian empire down to the time of Shāpūr II. A Pahlavī Inscription of Persepolis, which Herzfeld deciphered in 1923, dated probably in A.D. 310-11, when Shāpūr II (309-79) was on the throne, refers to the Sassanian ruler of Śakasthāna as "*Śakānsāh*, minister of ministers (*dabīrān dabīr*) of Hind, Sakasthāna and Tukhāristhān" (*MASI*, 38, 36). The Paikuli Inscription mentions the Śaka chiefs of North-Western India among the retainers of Varhrān III, Governor of Śakasthāna in the last quarter of the third century A.D. (*JRAS*, 1933, 219). The Ābhīras of Western India seem also to have acknowledged the sway of the Sassanians (Rapson, *Andhra Coins*, cxxxiv). J. Charpentier points out (*Aiyangar Com.*, Vol. 16) that at the time of Kosmas Indiko-pleustes (*c.* 500 A.D.) the right side of the Indus Delta belonged to Persia. Persians figure also in early Chalukya epigraphs and the *Raghuvaṁśa* of Kālidāsa.

c18.s3.121

These were Ta-hia (the Oxus region, *i.e.*, Bactria), Ki-pin (Kāpiśa), Kao-fou (Kābul) and 'Tien-tchou' (lit. India, meaning probably the country on either side of the Indus with a vague suzerainty over a wider area). In 230 the Ta Yueh-chi, *i.e.*, the Great (?) Yueh-chi king Po-tiao sent an embassy to the Chinese Emperor. The Yueh-chi kingdom of 'Tientchou' began to fall to pieces some time after this date and probably disappeared as an important power in the fourth century A.D. having already lost some of the remotest provinces to the Nāgas. Those nearer the Indus emerged as petty states. Śakasthāna and parts of North-West India were conquered by the Sassanians in the days of Varhrān II (A.D. 276-93). During the early part of the reign of Shāpūr II (A.D. 309-79) the Sassanian suzerainty was still acknowledged in those regions.

Linked texts (12)