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: 15 March 2011
In Trübners Record of June, 1871, I gave a notice of a short Inscription, of which a rubbing was brought from Takht-i-Bahi by Dr. Leitner. The rubbing showed the Inscription to be in a very defective state, and, according to General Cunningham, the original stone has been used for grinding spices on. A photograph of it has since been obtained, from which the accompanying plate has been copied. Many of the letters are indistinct, but the photograph would seem to indicate that the blank space in the middle was blank from the first. The stone is now in the Lahore Museum. I quote what I said in the Record.
page 377 note 1 Reproduced in the Indian Antiquary of August, 1873, p. 242.
page 380 note 1 Archæological Survey, iii. 29.Google Scholar
page 380 note 2 Journ. E.A.S. vol. iii. p. 269Google Scholar. Plates, Multai. Journ. B.A.S. vol. vi. p. 870.Google Scholar
page 381 note 1 This title or name is also found upon the Indo-Sassanian coins of a somewhat later date.—See Thomas, 's Prinsep, vol. ii. p. 113Google Scholar; Ariana Antiqua, p. 400.
page 382 note 1 Journ. R.A.S. Vol. V. N.S. p. 182; Arch. Rep. vol. iii. pp. 36, 37.Google Scholar
page 382 note 2 Extrait des Notices et Communications de l'Académie royale d'Amsterdam, 1873.
page 382 note 3 Prinsep's Useful Tables, in Thomas, , Vol. ii. p. 158.Google Scholar
page 383 note 1 Prinsep's Useful Tables, in Thomas, , vol. ii. p. 158.Google Scholar
page 383 note 2 Thomas, 's Prinsep, vol. ii. p. 258Google Scholar, and a note in p. 259, where Mr. Wathen records his opinion, that he made a mistake in supposing the “Samvat” of a certain Guzerat inscription to have been the Ballabhi Samvat, and that the Samvat so used “is that of Vikramâditya.”
page 383 note 3 Arch. Report, iii. p. 45Google Scholar. Coincidently he proposes to identify Kanishka with Wema-Kadphises. In a later page (139) Chandra Gupta I. is placed in the year 79 A.D.; that is, the very epoch of the era of Sâlivâhana.