No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
As we have pointed out elsewhere, the question of the date of the era of Kaniska still seems far from a final solution, and it will probably remain so until further evidence comes to light. Equally doubtful is the problem of the succession of the kings of Kaniṣka's dynasty, for their relationships are by no means settled and there are several kindred questions which are still unanswered. The evidence on the subject is extremely tenuous, and, as with the date of Kaniska himself, no final conclusions can be reached, but we propose to review the more important data, and to put forward some suggestions which may encourage further investigation of the problem.
page 77 note 1 BSOAS, XV, 1, 1953, 95.Google Scholar
page 77 note 2 EI, VIII, 173 ff.
page 77 note 3 EI, IX, 240; XIX, 96. The latter inscription, dated 14, is believed by Dr. Lohuizen to refer to a later Kaniska, being actually dated in the year 114 with omitted hundred sign (‘Scythian’ period, 313). The question is not, however, very relevant to our subject.
page 77 note 4 CII, II, 141.
page 77 note 5 CII, II, 149; JRAS, 1924, 400.
page 77 note 6 JRAS, 1910, 1313.
page 77 note 7 EI, II, 369. The date is almost certainly 28, not 78 (JRAS, 1910, 1314–15).
page 77 note 8 EI, XXI, 60 f.
page 77 note 9 EI, VIII, 181 f.
page 77 note 10 ARASI, 1908–9, 160.
page 77 note 11 CII, II, 165.
page 78 note 1 EI, I, 387. The date is read by Bühler as 44. Banerji (EI, X, 114) reads 58. In our opinion the former reading is more probable.
page 78 note 2 EI, X, 112. The inscription is on an image now in Lucknow Museum, but its provenance is Mathura.
page 78 note 3 EI, X, 113.
page 78 note 4 CII, II, 170.
page 78 note 5 EI, I, 386; II, p. 204, n. 61.
page 78 note 6 EI, IX, 242. H. C. Raychaudhuri mentions an unpublished inscription in Mathura Museum dated in the year 67, during the reign of Vāsudeva (PHAI, p. 478, n. 1).
page 78 note 7 Lüders, ‘List’, no. 76.
page 78 note 8 ‘Scythian’ period, 307 ff.
page 78 note 9 JRAS, 1924, 402–3.
page 78 note 10 JBBRAS, NS, I, 1925,Google Scholar 1 ff.; CII, II, p. Ixxi.
page 79 note 1
, I, 168.
page 79 note 2 CII, II, p. lxxxi.
page 79 note 3 Bégram, 141–2.
page 79 note 4 EHI, 286.
page 79 note 5 I A, XXXVII, 1908, 58 ff.
page 79 note 6 Bégram, 101–2.
page 80 note 1 CII, II, pp. lxxx–i.
page 80 note 2 Vallée Poussin, L. de la, L'Inde. aux temps des Mauryas …, Paris, 1930, 317;Google Scholar CII, II, p. lxxxi, etc.
page 81 note 1 JRAS, 1952,116.
page 81 note 2 See above, p. 78, n. 6.
page 82 note 1 (a) The line of Vuppadeva of Kashmir, six generations and seven reigns in 115 years (DHNI, I, 183). (b) The Yādavas of Devagiri, from Bhillama to Śankara, seven generations and seven reigns in 132 years ( de la Vallee Poussin, , Dynasties et histoire de I'lnde …, Paris, 1935, 221–2Google Scholar).
page 83 note 1 Creel, H.G., The birth of China, New York, 1937, 127.Google Scholar
page 83 note 2 Chavannes, E., Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) occidentaux [2nd ed.], Paris, [1941], 2–4;Google Scholar Wittfogel, K.A. and Chia-Shêng, Fêng, History of Chinese society, Liao, Philadelphia, 1949, 400.Google Scholar We are indebted to Professor E. G. Pulleyblank for these references. Dr. R. A. Oliver tells us that a similar system prevails in the succession to the chieftainship of certain tribes of East Africa.
page 83 note 3 Altekar, A.S. in The Gupta-Vākāṭaka age, Lahore, 1946, 50.Google Scholar
page 83 note 4 Geiger, W., Cūḷavaṃsa translation, Oxford, 1929, introduction, p. XX.Google Scholar Recently DrAriyapala, M.S. has questioned Geiger's generally held view (Society in medieval Ceylon, Colombo, 1956, 53–4Google Scholar). It is evident that the normal Indian system of succession gradually replaced that from brother to brother in the Sinhalese royal family.
page 85 note 1 Indo-Européens et Indo-Iraniens, 2nd ed., Paris, 1936, 108–9.Google Scholar
page 85 note 2 JRAS, 1913, 103 ff.
page 85 note 3 JBBEAS, NS, I, 1925,Google Scholar 3 ff.
page 86 note 1 JBBRAS, NS, I, 1925, 5.Google Scholar
page 86 note 2 ‘Scythian’ period, 65, etc.
page 86 note 3 CII, II, pp. xciii–iv.
page 86 note 4 Bégram, 106.
page 87 note 1 ‘Le problème de la chronologie des Kouchans’, Cahiers d'Histoire mondiale, III, 1957, 689–722.Google Scholar
page 87 note 2 ibid., 707 ff.
page 87 note 3 ibid., 714, n. 111.