[13] Some coins of Apollodotus have on the reverse Apollo with his arrow; others have Athene Promachos with the thunderbolt. [↑]
[14] Bom. Gaz. XVI. 571ff. [↑]
[15] A well known Sanskrit saying is श्वशुरख्यातोधमाधम: A man known through his father-in-law is the vilest of the vile. [↑]
[16] Cunningham’s Arch. Sur. III. Plate 13. Inscriptions 2 and 3. [↑]
[17] The author’s only reason for supposing that two eras began between a.d. 70 and 80 seems to be the fact that the Javanese Śaka era begins a.d. 74, while the Indian Śaka era begins a.d. 78. It appears, however, from Lassen’s Ind. Alt. II. 1040 note 1, that the Javanese Śaka era begins either in a.d. 74 or in a.d. 78. The author’s own authority, Dr. Burnell (S. Ind. Pal. 72) while saying that the Javanese Śaka era dates from a.d. 74, gives a.d. 80 as the epoch of the Śaka era of the neighbouring island of Bali, thus supporting Raffle’s explanation (Java, II. 68) that the difference is due to the introduction into Java of the Muhammadan mode of reckoning during the past 300 years. The Javanese epoch of a.d. 74 cannot therefore be treated as an authority for assuming a genuine Indian era with this initial date. The era of Kanishka was used continuously down to its year 281 (Fergusson Hist. of Ind. Architecture, 740) and after that date we have numerous instances of the use of the Śakanṛipakála or Śakakála down to the familiar Śaka of the present day. It seems much more likely that the parent of the modern Śaka era was that of Kanishka, which remained in use for nearly three centuries, than that of Nahapána, who so far as we know left no son, and whose era (if he founded one) probably expired when the Kshaharáta power was destroyed by the Ándhrabhṛityas in the first half of the second century a.d. We must therefore assume a.d. 78 to be the epoch of Kanishka’s era. There remains the question whether Nahapána dates by Kanishka’s era, or uses his own regnal years. There is nothing improbable in the latter supposition, and we are not forced to suppose that Nahapána was a feudatory of the Kushán kings. It has been shown above that the use of the title Kshatrapa does not necessarily imply a relation of inferiority. On the other hand (pace Oldenburg in Ind. Ant. X. 213) the later Kshatrapas certainly seem to have used Kanishka’s era: and Nahapána and the Kushán dynasty seem to have been of the same race: for Heraus, who was certainly a Kushán, apparently calls himself Śaka on his coins (Gardner B. M. Cat. xlvii.); and it is highly probable that Nahapána, like his son-in-law Ushavadáta, was a Śaka. Further, the fact that Nahapána does not call himself Mahárája but Rája goes to show that he was not a paramount sovereign.—(A. M. T. J.) [↑]
[18] Jour. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 378; Ind. Ant. XV. 198, 201, XIII. 126; Arch. Sur. X. 33. [↑]
[19] Cunningham’s Arch. Sur. XIII. 162. Cf. Kielhorn in Ind. Ant. XIX. 20ff. [↑]
[20] Cunningham’s Arch. Sur. X. 33–34. Numerous Western India inscriptions prove that ya and va are often intermixed in Prákrit. [↑]
[21] Vide Telang’s Mudrárákshasa, 204. Mr. Telang gives several readings the best of which mean either the king of the Málaya country or the king of the Málaya tribe. [↑]
[22] Macmurdo (1818) notices the democratic constitution of the Káthis. Trans. Bom. Lit. Soc. I. 274. [↑]