The Name of Vema Takhtu1

Harry Falk, Berlin

The new king
This article tries to assemble all the known spellings of the name of the second king of the Kuṣāṇas. For its title “vema takhtu” was selected, the version which I would propose to use, since it can be shown to be the source of a wide range of variant forms in several languages, including takho, tako, taktu, takhtuasa, takṣumasya, TAKTOO and TAKΔOOY. Vema Takhtu as an individual king of the Kuṣāṇa lineage became known as such only after the Bactrian inscription from Rabatak was edited by the jubilarian.2 Seeing him mentioned as son of Kujula Kadphises and father of Vima Kadphises the question of his coinage arose. Kujula’s various emissions have been well known for long, as were those of Vima Kadphises. Since it has likewise been known for a long time that the widely distributed coinage of an anonymous sōtēr megas comes in between Kujula and Vima Kadphises, it was natural to assume that Vema Takhtu is none other than sōtēr megas himself. Cribb was the first to say so and thus paved the way out of many a calamity.3 Mac Dowall provided a reason for the irritating anonymity, by pointing4 to the parallel behaviour of Octavian, who called himself “Caesar Augustus, divi filius, Imperator” after his victory in 31 bc. The title devaputra, introduced in the last years of Kujula, also derives from this haloed antetype.5 The regular succession from
1 An early version of this paper was presented at a conference in September 2004 at Worcester College, Oxford, during a conference financed by the Neil Kreitman foundation. The discussion involving Sh. Bhandare, O. Bopearachchi, J. Cribb, E. Errington and R. Senior was of great help. Special thanks are due to Joe Cribb for granting access to the British Museum collection of Kuṣāṇa coins and to Michael Alram and Osmund Bopearachchi for providing important literature. The exchange with Nicholas SimsWilliams over the years on matters Kuṣāṇa has been both a personal and an academic pleasure. Thanks also are due to the editors for accepting me in the circle of felicitators. Sims-Williams 1996, pp. 652–654; 1998, pp. 81–83; Sims-Williams/Cribb 1995–1996. Cf. Göbl, who otherwise saw clearly that Kujula was the grandfather of Vima Kadphises, wrote in 1976, p. 51: “Since the coins of Soter Megas form the only available material to fill the numismatic gap between Kujula and Vima [Kadphises HF], only he can be, in my opinion, the famous Ch’iu-chiu-ch’üeh [= Kujula! HF] of the Chinese source.” Mac Dowall 2002, p. 167 b. Mac Dowall, ibid.

2 3

4 5

221. 116. 117. one shorter and one longer. a fact confirmed by numerous coin hoards where the coppers of both kings occurs side by side. Senior 2001. probably in Kashmir. reading maharaja Shortly after the Rabatak inscription was published. p.2. reading vema takho and vema takha types measure about 15 and 17 mm in diameter and weigh 3. Vema” and not *vemasa “… of Vema”. the son of the gods. B12. weighing 2. Sims-Williams/Cribb 1995–1996. the king over kings.” 6 7 8 Mac Dowall 2002. who himself had copPhotos: Harry Falk ied issues of the conquered Jihonika/Zeionises. but where the letters forming takho had remained enigmatic. p. The coinage with names in Prakrit Light-weight bull-and-camel. B12. This construction explains itself as an abbreviation in the light of the longer version8: maharajasa rajatirajasa devaputrasa vema takho “Of Vema Takhu. which clearly was continuing the bull-and-camel coppers of Kujula. 1: Two “Kashmir” coppers of Vema Takhtu. 168 b. p. the son of the gods.9 g on average. a large number of a new variety of coins was found.5 grams in their standard forms. where Vima Kadphises adds his heavy copper issue weighing 17 grams to the retained volume of issues of sōtēr megas. p. The bull side bears an inscription in strange but unambiguous Greek letters which will be dealt with below.106 Harry Falk sōtēr megas to Vima Kadphises becomes obvious through a look at the metrology of the coinage. 221. variety 7 b. variety 7 a. Sims-Williams/Cribb 1995–1996. .9 and 4. On the camel side two sorts of texts in Kharoṣṭhī can be found. Senior 2001. while the name occurs in the nominative: “of the Great king. The short version on the smaller coins7 reads: maharajasa rajatirajasa devaputrasa vema We should note at this point that there is a grammatical particularity involved: The titles have a genitive ending.6 The coinage of his father and predecessor is thus supplemented and not replaced by Vima Kadphises. With the Rabatak genealogy at hand it was also possible to attribute successfully a series of coins where vema was read before. p.1 and 8.1. The two Fig. “SM5”. of the Great King.

Cribb.. *takoḥ.9 The full legend goes: maharayasa / rayatirayasa devaputrasa vema tako mahatasa “Of the Great King. 1 right). and so vema can look like vama or voma. The obverse shows the bull and the legend in Greek letters with a clear OOHMO below the bull. where an ordinary ka shows a slanting -o-vowel. the son of the gods.” The reading tako is justified in only one case. 9 The variants are dealt with in Sims-Williams/Cribb 1995–1996. 69. A guess at a kto in his exemplar can be justified. most probably. 115 f. the small slanting o-stroke having been omitted (fig. In several cases the final mahatasa is truncated to maha or masa for want of space. In any case. 1 left). Skt. Species of both varieties continue coming to the market and it is obvious that large amounts of them were once in circulation. Heavy-weight Bull-and-Camel reading maharaya This Kashmir edition must be contrasted with another series of larger coppers. . type 6 a. So. Only with the full reading do we get a form which can be understood as a genitive. under “type 6” with varieties “a” to “e”. being takho. The other cases are such that a ko is very unlikely. 9 is supposed to show one of the Kashmir copper variety. where no. It can be assumed from these differences that the die-cutter was not very familiar with the letter that he was expected to inscribe. in fact it does not really belong to this group. The odd-one-out The legend on the smaller coins from Kashmir was presented above. as a genitive of *taku. p. *takhoḥ. as we saw. weighing about 10. so that the “orthography” is closer to the Greek versions to be dealt with below. Skt. of a base takhu. of Vema Taku the Great. Errington/ Curtis 2007 again speak about the various issues of Vema Takhtu.The Name of Vema Takhtu 107 The closing takho is occasionally followed by a dividing line (fig. none of the variants seems to contain an aspirated kha. with examples on p. but needs a clear example for verification.5 g. the Overlord of kings. the issuing place is not identical with the one of the small variety. and the respective letter looks like hi (type 6 e) or kta (type 6 c). With regard to the personal name the usual inscriptional flaws can be observed. tako or *takto instead of takho. it writes maharaya instead of maharaja and. However. In this one clear case known to me again a genitive is required and therefore I take tako. and takho often comes as takha. This series of large coppers uses a different language than the small ones. for the reconstructable genitive *takto the basic form is *taktu.

p. 134. known since long. but the inscription is not one of those given above. the “grandson of the Great King”.108 Harry Falk ///japotra-mahakṣadavasa[+++]/// japotra should be restored as maharaja-potra. It reads (fig. 134. p. for whom the same coin type was originally designed. 38. Photo: Harry Falk The reverse depicts the usual camel.12 which suffers from the fact that the rubbing Konow was forced to use does not disclose that a piece of the tenon has flaked off. Falk 2001. Fig. 3). p. Unfortunately. Salomon/Schopen 2002. The text has been edited by Konow from a rubbing as dhivhakarasa takhtidreṇa karide. is unpublished so far. without being questioned. This seems to be a further case. 2: “Kashmir” copper Since the obverse gives the name of the king it is of the Mahākṣatrapa to be expected that a grandson of the same Vema. changed the reverse legend to his own name for reasons unknown to us. rendered as “Of Dīpaṅkara.11 I have referred to his traditional reading before. Rawalpindi. Cf. leading to more separate lines at the left end than originally cut. his name is only preserved in the lower parts of three letters and cannot be reconstructed. the statue is at home in the Army Museum. The mu and the kho are mutilated in their upper part. p. on the tenon of a dīpaṅkara Buddha turning the wheel of law (fig. 33. p. 21. but completely different. So it is not surprising that Vema succeeded Kujula at an age when he already had grown-up grandsons. a pious donation of Takhtu. This same person is also mahākṣatrapa.” 10 11 12 Falk 2002–2003. The dīpaṅkara Buddha The Kharoṣṭhī forms takho or tako/takto as genitives have a very clear parallel in an inscription. and its treatment in Konow 1929. but could be of pure Kuṣāṇa descent. There is a long tradition of mentioning the overlord on the obverse and a governor or sub-king on the reverse. Vema Takhtu came to power rather late because his father Kujula reigned until old age. 2): . The text reads from the stone as: dhivhakarasa takhto daṇamukho “(Statue) of the Dīpaṅkara. made by Takhtidra”. and apart from a short notice in ASIAR 1912–1913. Part I. Presently. This coin also shows that some of the persons called mahākṣatrapa in Kuṣāṇa time inscriptions from Mathura10 and elsewhere do not necessarily belong to ousted Kṣatrapa families.

as everyone else would have done at that time. pratimā. pl. with some letters not perfectly pre13 14 Fussman 1974. it must be hidden in what I read as takhto rather than takhti. who read ϷAO OOHMO TAK[PI?] at a time when this king was not known otherwise.14 The second case is found on the Rabatak stone slab. and reliably edited by Fussman13. always requires the donor’s name in the genitive. Photo: Abdul Samad Fig. The first instance is the well-known Dasht-e Nāwur inscription. For an understanding of the inscription we have to supply a “statue”. p. where Sims-Williams could read OOHMO (T)AKTOO ϷAO. p. Fussman looked for a form of Kadphises. but for such a surmise the piece’s style looks too young. Since daṇamukho. otherwise the person called Takhtu (or Takhti) would refer to himself as “Producer of light”. . At least this inscription shows that the name Takhtu (less likely Takhti) was still in use a century or so later than our Vema Takthu. III. 15. “pious donation”. who shows Mithra with the sun’s rays on the obverse of his coins. Fussman 1974. after dhivhakarasa.The Name of Vema Takhtu 109 The khto can be questioned since the vowel-stroke traverses the whole of the kha-bend. with due reserve at a “métathèse ou erreur du lapicide”. 18. 3: The dīpaṅkara of Takhtu Stone inscriptions in Bactrian script There are two inscriptions where Vema Takhtu is mentioned in Kuṣāṇa dynastic records. so that the letter can be taken as a khti or a khto. which would be in line with sōtēr megas. and guessed. not very well preserved on top of a mountain.

9. mostly issued by Vima Kadphises. This soft variety TAKΔOO. p. Garbini. Removing the Greek genitive ending we are faced with a stem takto. It was edited by Callieri 1997 as “Cat U 7.no. and therefore a written OOHMO TAKTOO ϷAO was once pronounced similar to wem takto ša. BACIΛEΩC OOHMO TAKTOOY KOOϷϷANOY YIOC. comparing Fussman’s safe reading of the initial consonant allowed a restoration to TAKTOO. the Δ is preserved just once. 1892. found in two of our variant groups. no. Due to the comparative research done by Sims-Williams.11–3. Then follows BACΛ or BAC. no. However. 53. Bopearachchi 2007. 2008. the left and bottom part is off the flan. they have very little to do with the large number of gold coin types known so far from this king. on the left side. standing for BACIΛEΩN. 6. The OO is present on several pieces. which could be the rest of TAKΔOO. According to their iconography and palaeography. with a few pieces of Kaniṣka limiting the date of the deposit. . where at first glance the delta looks like just another writing mistake but for which it might pay to return to the Kashmir coppers. 3.187. acc. Amongst the Vima Kadphises coins were two types never seen before. derived from E+I.24” as read by R. Part of the treasure was published by O. However. it is now common knowledge that Bactrian words ending in O are pronounced without the -o. but often misshapen and used as a text divider. This title is sufficient to show that here we have to do with a seal used by some local official in the name of a Kuṣāṇa king. translated as “defender of the village”.15 On the oldest coins. but it is nowhere discernible. a hoard of gold coins was found in Peshawar city. the variant spelling is not noted on p. seems to show that the dental was pronounced with less impetus than the velar sound in front of it. 5. On one coin a variant16 *TAKΔOOY is found. Bopearachchi. 15 16 Bopearachchi 2007 and 2008. Vima Kadphises calls himself “son of the king Wemo Takto the Kuṣāṇa”. p. followed by a second text divider and BAC. On most of the about 30 pieces which I have seen so far. The top starts with a sort of theta. who also published it separately in 2001. the name of this king written in the second line was read by Garbini as gramarakkhaasa. reading correctly the first line as maharajadevaputra.110 Harry Falk served. certainly standing for BACIΛEYC. behind the animal the text ends in ///ΔOO. Coin inscriptions in Greek language and script Very recently. Below the animal OOHMO might be expected. The so-called grāmarakṣaka seal Undealt with so far in our context is a very peculiar seal lodged in the British Museum.

for ́ which the engraver took it. when furnished with the e-stroke. graphically distinguished by a stroke to the right at the foot of the vertical. so that it looks almost like a ha. “Cat U 7. the opinio communis is to take it as similar to w as in wheel. this combination e looks rather similar to an ordinary gra. 4: Seal of the mahārāja grāmatakhtua (after Callieri 1997. It is obvious at first glace that the alleged ra is in fact a clearly written ta. 17 18 Garbini 2001. 81. Leaving aside the grama.24”. but a tu. below which is a kha. Taking into account the preceding character RA this conjunct symbol might be KHSA”. A scribe may have developed the habit to write a with a small loop at the upper bend ( ).The Name of Vema Takhtu 111 Fig. particularly in the coin legend of Vima Kadphises. p. But how to account for the grama-? I propose to regard gra as a miscued version of e. courtesy British Museum) This makes little sense and therefore the seal was absent from the recent discussions about Kuṣāṇa genealogy. as written in Kharoṣṭhī at Kalatse. .17 The plate accompanying the Indian publication is not very clear with regard to the crucial letter. The plate in Callieri 2001 shows that there is no sa on top. followed by a genitive sa. Konow 1929. We see also that the letter beneath it is not a tra. The precise pronunciation of a is not known. If this seal has anything to do with the Kuṣāṇas. with a slight u preceding it. we have a maharaja-devaputra. below which is a symbol which “cannot be meaningfully read though it resembles a small TRA. then takthua must refer to *Takhtu as known from the coinage. 196. but that the kha has a slightly curved upper part. for which it is occasionally mistaken. The following compounded letter was taken by Garbini as a sa “in its secondary form or simply a horizontal stroke” on top. This view can be supported by the spelling uvima in Vima Kadphises’ name. who comes by the name of takhtua. This rather irritating reading deserves a closer look (fig. with the a being a variant of va.18 and in the Kharoṣṭhī letter a being constantly used in ́ ima-kalpiśa on the same king’s coinage. The reading therefore is grama-takhtuasa. 4). p.

In contrast to Lüders. Son of the Gods. but made to stamp goods and documents in any of the provinces. Overlord of Kings. p.23 Syntactically. making the bakanapati an officer in the service of ṣāhi vema takṣuma. across the river from Mathura.” It is evident from a series of seals of other kings like Kaniṣka I19. held at least two statues of Kuṣāṇa kings. p. 607) could not see either śāhi or the ve of vema. son of the gods. and so I read the seal as: maharajadevaputra (e. On the flat base between his boots an inscription22 is found. In any case it seems hazardous to separate vema takṣumasya from the already wellknown vema takho of the coinage. Startling is the extended form takhtuasa. And since the bakanapati was appointed 19 20 21 22 23 Thaplyal 1972. p. 43. .→ gra)matakhtuasa “(Seal) of the Great King. On a partly destroyed surface. one of them sitting on a throne.112 Harry Falk It seems much easier to suppose such a miswriting and end up with an intended ema takhtuasa. saying in the last two of the four lines that an officer in charge of the house for the gods (bakanapati) had built the temple (devakula). 42. furnished with a park (ārama). sword across his lap. or Gondophares21 that this is not a personal seal. a well (udapāna) and a doorway (dārakoṭhaka). lotus pond (puṣkariṇi). but the upper part is preserved. Thaplyal 1972. than to explain a grama in front of the takhtuasa in a Kuṣāṇa dynasty personal name. Fussman (1998. probably. holding a flower. and we are free to guess if this Vema Takṣuma is identical with the mahārāja or not. in order to allow inflexion parallel to a noun ending in -a. The first two lines describe the portrayed figure as mahārājo rājātirājo devaputro kuṣāṇaputro “the Great King. showing definitely that vema is to be read and not vima. the right hand raised and before its mutilation. as if the name takhtu had received a thematic ending. 588. Of the two letters vema the lower half is almost gone. with a clear ṣa. Kaniṣka II or III20. ṣāhi can only be read with light from a very flat angle. son of the Kuṣāṇa”. p. p. these last three words must be joined to the last two lines. I can prove both by own pictures which I can send on request. The governors responsible for their production may not have supervised their production as carefully as a real name-holder would have done for his personal use. ema Takhtua. The line ends ṣāhi vema takṣumasya. Fussman 1998. Sims-Williams/Tucker 2005. Vema Takṣuma in Māṭ The family sanctuary at Māṭ. 606 f. and no trace of the ā-stroke left.

taktu or takhtu in any way? That a kha. since we are only dealing with the name as such. m as a hiatus bridger is not used in Sanskrit. as it does occasionally in Pali. is given as 閻膏珍 Yan-gao-zhen.g. § 2. e. p. however. The other way round is only sparingly attested.26 In the Hu-Han-Shu the second king. such a misreading would presuppose a rather vague knowledge on the side of the bakanapati about the name of his master. The m may be intended to bridge the hiatus between the two vowels.The Name of Vema Takhtu 113 by him. where we find ukṣa as a “wrong” or hyper-Sanskritic form. § 25. However. while it is dreaded in Sanskritic orthography. Yen Gao Chen For the sake of completeness a word may be permitted concerning the vexed question of Vema’s name in Chinese. If such a coin was used to ascertain the correct spelling. On the contrary. and it does not represent Kadphises. the legend regularly ends in mahatasa. another solution might be found in the larger bull-and-camel coppers. where yan represents Vema. the final tak(t)o masa could be read as takomasa.24 Since it would have been possible to represent an original kṣa in the Gandharan language and in the Karoṣṭhī script. . the second of the Kuṣāṇas. since 24 Edgerton 1953. 124. There is no third syllable in the genitive takho. It is more difficult to account for the additional syllable ma. where a v would have been used after u. as said above. does not represent Taktu. the portrayed mahārāja can either be Vema Takṣuma himself or his father. in some cases shortened to maha or masa (Cribb type 6 c). Can takṣuma be linked to takhu. succeeding Kujula Kadphises.g. ukhā. However. where. written and pronounced. corresponds to a kṣa in a more polished parlance is known from a multitude of examples. Sims-Williams 1998. both in takṣumasya and in takhtuasa we have to do with genitives in Indo-Aryan languages and it seems that the additional syllable was only used to turn takhtu into an a-stem for easy genitive formation. Kujula Kadphises. denoting a certain vessel. “reconstructed” from the correct Skt. p. 26 Cf.25 In Gāndhārī spellings in Kharoṣṭhī script such a hiatus is rather common. but there seems to be one in takhtua-sa on the seal. the kṣa in takṣuma cannot stand at the root of the variant spellings. Despite the few Pali cases. 90. it must be regarded as a “learned” derivative of an original pronunciation containing a kha. Therefore. bhikṣu turning into bhikkhu in many vernaculars. original Skt. in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. Gao-zhen.25. as generally admitted. e. This open question has received different answers which need not concern us here. 25 Oberlies 2001. for obvious phonetic reasons. brushed up to takṣumasya.

another informant may have used guṣāṇa. when pronounced vema guṣāṇa.e. From the spellings in Brāhmī inscriptions of kaniṣka/kaneṣka and huviṣka/huveṣka we know that both vowels were used convertibly.g. we have at least a hint by the seal dealt with above that the use of the a to start it was introduced already in the time of the father.. Mukherjee 1996–1997. p. an expression of the quantity of this vowel. but all cases present us nothing but e. without realizing that both terms contain a common element. Every language and script concerned would be able to express an i. 28 Fussman 1974. 15. which is absent. pl. line 3. V. used i on his coins consistently. p. his grandson on his coins. The first part of the name is given in Kharoṣṭhī as vema on the coins. from one source and about the ruling king in India. Spelling variations are more or less the rule when it comes to Indian place names in early Chinese literature.29 In its Kharoṣṭhī spellings no Kujula “Kadphises” is identical with the canonised kalpiśa as used by Vima Kadphises. A further spelling variation in Chinese regarding the Kuṣāṇas would not surprise given the many ways Kuṣāṇa names occur even in Indian sources. may well have lead to yen gao chen. however. and most likely. the Brāhmī at Māṭ reads vema as well. probably as ema on the seal. as the name is spelled in Panjtar. Vima Kadphises. with no takto at all and no space for a na between śa and sa. i. text IV. p. the name of Kujula Kadphises. 27 Sims-Williams/Cribb 1995–1996. Manikiala or Kamra. With regard to the first name. including the Kuṣāṇas. 29 Fussman 1974. this occasional variant address. e. Summary The representation of Kuṣāṇa personal names in Indo-Aryan languages must have been a difficult affair judging from the numerous forms of. some scribes preferred the one and others the other variety. The Bactrian inscriptions have OOHMO as do the Greek legends of the coins of his son. Vema Kuṣāṇa. from another. To expect a third Vema would require literary or numismatic evidence. . if we presuppose diffent informants with different spelling habits. Although kuṣāṇa or khuṣāṇa (Taxila silver scroll) is the most common Kharoṣṭhī spelling for the family name. 95. Since the form Vema Kuṣā<ṇa> was actually used at Dasht-e Nāwur by the Kharoṣṭhī scribe. A look at the Dasht-e Nawur inscriptions provides at least a possible alternative: the Bactrian text reads OOHMO TAKTOO KOϷANO. spelled Kuei-Shuang (貴霜).114 Harry Falk Kujula Kadphises name is spelled 丘就卻 in the same line. 39.27 whereas the Kharoṣṭhī parallel on the same stone has nothing but the genitive vhama kuśasa. common to Vema Takhtu and Vima Kadphises.28 It seems possible that the Chinese envoys heard about the history of the five tribes of the Yüe Chi.

O. . we see three independent developments. we are left with the two thematizations takhtuasa and takṣumasya. We now come to the closing vowel. Indian. P. pp. Ph. disregarding the thematic extention. attempts were made to thematise the foreign word.The Name of Vema Takhtu 115 For the second part I propose to regard takhtu of the seal as the basic form. So we get takhtu-a-sa on the Kharoṣṭhī seal and takṣu-m-a-sya at Māṭ. In short. R. Local. Sasanian. Errington. Sims-Williams. Roman. The kh must stand for a velar sound. forms with kta exist but their vocalisation is presently uncertain.” In: Journal des Savant. on the larger bull-and-camel coppers (Cribb type 6). as in the case of Kharahostes. in the Greek TAKTOOY genitive and in the Bactrian TAKTOO. Gignoux. Fasc. Garbini. where the genitive is spelled kharaostasa in Kharoṣṭhī and XAPAHΩCTEIC in Greek. all starting from one basic form: a) takhtu → takhu → takṣuma b) takhtu → taktu/TAKTOO → TAKΔOO → taku c) takhtu → takhtua References Bopearachchi. The t was preserved on the seal in Kharoṣṭhī. 1997: Seals and sealings from the North-West of the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan (4th century BC–11th century AD). both presupposing a closing -u. W. 2007: “Some observations on the chronology of the early Kushans. 3–56. pp. Sogdian. on the Kashmir coppers and deaspirated to tako. the variant TAKΔOO seems to be present on the Kashmir coppers and on one early gold coin of Vima Kadphises and shows that the dental was pronounced rather weakly. This genitive was simplified according to Prakrit rules to takho. Bures-sur-Yvette (Res orientales 17). Dissertationes 1). not a laryngeal one. 41–53. Since the basic form and the genitive can be so much alike in the NorthWestern vernaculars. since the Greek versions have little means to express the aspiration. When we disregard the clear genitive forms in -o. spelled /takkho/. in order to obtain a form which could easily be recognized as a genitive by everyone. but they would certainly have used a X (chi) if a laryngeal sound was to be heard. Naples (Istituto universitario orientale. N. Graeco-Persian. 1 (janvier–juin). Starting from an -u-noun a genitive form *takhtoḥ would comply with Sanskrit grammar.” In: Gyselen.): Des Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides: données pour l’histoire et la géographie historique. Callieri. With contributions by E. spelled /takko/. R. The phonetically simplified basic form *takhu most likely was used to create the Sanskritic form takṣuma. Zwalf. (ed. — 2008: “Les premiers souverains kouchans: chronologie et iconographie monétaire.

Konow. Vol. K. Mac Dowall.D. pp.” In: SRAA 4. N. 11th to 15th September 1995.” In: CRAI 1996. Exploring ancient Iran.” In: SRAA 7. Falk. R.): Indogermanica. 163–169. 1–66. H. to mid-seventh century A. With contributions by J. 1996–1997: “The names of the Kushāṇa rulers. Afghan and Islamic Studies presented to Ralph Pinder-Wilson.116 Harry Falk Edgerton. Thaplyal. A Grammar of the Language of the Theravāda Tipiṭaka. Cribb.” In: BEFEO 61. D. K. London. pp. pp. pp. SimsWilliams (ed.and its cognates. 79–92. Berlin/New York.” In: Cairo to Kabul. Grammar and Dictionary. 195–199. — 2002–2003: “Some inscribed images from Mathurā revisited. with an appendix on the names of Kujula Kadphises and Vima Taktu in Chinese. Sims-Williams. London. R. 1929: Kharoshṭhī Inscriptions with the Exception of Those of Aśoka. Simpson. 633–654. 1974: “Documents épigraphiques kouchans. dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag.” In: Journal of Ancient Indian History 20. Ed.” In: JA 286. Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Fussman. Lancaster/London. 2001: Indo-Scythian Coins and History. pp. — 1998: “Further notes on the Bactrian inscription from Rabatak. 75–142. 1976: A catalogue of coins from Butkara I (Swāt. Errington. Wang. Salomon. Vol./J. 2001: Pāli.-M.” In: G. 121–136. J. 571–651. S. Calcutta (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 2. 3–31.C.1). N. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. II: Dictionary. Ball and L. 38–51. Lafont. Cribb 1995–1996: “A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka the Great. pp. Tucker 2005: “Avestan huuōišta. W. Indische. 2001: “The yuga of Sphujiddhvaja and the era of the Kuṣâṇas. Rome (Reports and Memoirs 4). . by W. New Haven. F. Schweiger (ed. Göbl. 587–604.” In: Indo-Asiatische Zeitschrift 6/7. N. pp. St. pp. A study of North Indian seals and sealings from circa third century B. S. C. Schopen 2002: “On an alleged reference to Amitābha in a Kharoṣṭhī inscription on a Gandhāran relief. Taimering (Studien zur Iranistik und Indogermanistik 3). Pakistan).” In: Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 25. 1996: “Nouveaux documents sur l’histoire et la langue de la Bactriane. Mukherjee.” In: N. Lucknow. B./E. N. Wiesbaden (Beiträge zur Iranistik 17). — 1998: “L’inscription de Rabatak et l’origine de l’ère Śaka. 2002: “The Rabatak inscription and the nameless Kushan king. pp. 31–47. Sims-Williams. Oberlies. 1972: Studies in Ancient Indian Seals. Senior. Sims-Williams. 1953: Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. R. Th./G. H. II: The illustrated catalogue of Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian coins. pp.” In: Numismatic Studies 6. iranische und indogermanische Studien. Garbini. Afghanistan and Pakistan. J. 2001: “An interesting Carnelian seal of the Kushāṇa period.): Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies held in Cambridge./V. pp. Harrow. R. E. G. pp. K. Curtis 2007: From Persepolis to the Punjab.

IRANICA Herausgegeben von Maria Macuch Band 17 2009 Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden .

Exegisti monumenta Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams Edited by Werner Sundermann. Almut Hintze and François de Blois 2009 Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden .

harrassowitz-verlag. Wiesbaden 2009 This work. including all of its parts.d-nb.de. This applies particularly to reproductions.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG. detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb. microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www. Printed on permanent/durable paper. translations.de abrufbar. Typesetting: Claudius Naumann Printing and binding: Memminger MedienCentrum AG Printed in Germany ISSN 0944-1271 ISBN 978-3-447-05937-4 . detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty.d-nb.Publication of this book was supported by a grant of the Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. is protected by copyright. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie.

Related Interests