Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
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
Owing to the exigencies of war I failed to get my copies of the Journal of the American Oriental Society between 1939 and 1945, and it is only within the last few days that I have seen Dr. Ludwig Bachhofer's most interesting article on “Greeks and Sakas in India” which appeared in the Journal as far back as December, 1941. In that article Dr. Bachhofer pays a warm tribute to Dr. W. W. Tarn's epoch-making work on The Greeks in Bactria and India, but at the same time challenges some of the views expressed by that great scholar. Though very late in the day I hope I may be allowed to add a few comments on what Dr. Bachhofer has said. I do so with no little hesitation, because failing eye-sight now makes it difficult for me to read or write, and still more difficult to re-examine the numismatic data and other minutiæ referred to by Dr. Bachhofer. On the other hand, half a life time spent in excavations at Taxila and other sites on the North-West Frontier of India has put me in possession of many relevant facts, of which it is evident that Dr. Bachhofer is still, through no fault of his own, in ignorance; and it is clearly my duty to make these facts known to others without loss of time. Already, it is true, I have written a full and comprehensive account in three volumes of the results of my long labours at Taxila, but though the manuscript of this book was sent to the Cambridge University Press at the end of 1945, I fear that in prevailing conditions it may be a year or two before it can be published; and in the meantime eminent scholars like Dr. Bachhofer may be spending valuable hours on problems which have in effect already been solved.
page 4 note 1 For further remarks on this toilet-tray, see my review of DrBuchthal's, H. British Academy Lecture on “The Western Aspects of Gandhara Sculpture”. JRAS., 06, 1946, pp. 116–122Google Scholar.
page 9 note 1 The descriptions of this and the following pieces are taken in the main from Mr. Hargreaves' catalogue of the Gandhāra sculptures from Taxila, which he was kind enough to contribute to my forthcoming book.
page 14 note 1 A good illustration of the struggle that went on between Hellenistic and Indian art before they were successfully blended together in the ateliers of Gandhāra, is afforded by the contemporary stucco figures from the Great Apsidal Temple in Sirkap dating, roughly, from the middle of the first century a.d. Two of these are reproduced in Bachhofer, , Early Indian Sculpture, pl. 141Google Scholar: the one on the left, a turbaned Indian head of the Bodhisattva, the other a purely Hellenistic head of a Satyr.
page 14 note 2 See the coin of Azes I figured in the B.M. Cat., Pl XIX, 1, where the thin blade is clearly visible in front of the emperor's body.
page 19 note 1 Cunn, ., Coins of the Indo-Scythians, Sakas, and Knshans, Pl IV, Nos. 1–4, 9, 11, 12Google Scholar; Pl. V, Nos. 4 and 4a; B.M. Cat., Pl XXI, Nos. 7, 8, 10; Pl. XXII, Nos. 1 and 3; Pl. XVII, Nos. 9 and 10.
page 19 note 2 Rapson himself attributes these coins to Azes I, not Azes II.
page 19 note 3 Cunn., op. cit., Pl. IV, 8, 10, and 13.
page 19 note 4 Cunn., op. cit., Pl. IV, 3 and 6; B.M. Cat., XXI, 9 and 11.
page 19 note 5 Conn., op. cit., Pl. IV, 7; VI, 6; VIII, 3 and 3a; B.M. Cat., XXI, 11 and 12.
page 22 note 1 On the different explanations of this term put forward by scholars, see Konow, in CII., vol. ii, p. lxxxviGoogle Scholar. The earliest recorded date in the kriṭa era is 282.
page 22 note 2 McDowell, R. H., Stamped and Inscribed Objects from Seleucia on the Tigris, pp. 254–5Google Scholar.
page 30 note 1 Cf. Lévi, Sylvain in Ind. Ant., 1903, pp. 421–2Google Scholar.
page 30 note 2 Smith, Vincent (EHI., 4th Ed., p. 269)Google Scholar is doubtless right in holding that the Sie expedition of c. a.d. 90, which met with disaster at the hands of Pan-chao, was dispatched by V'ima Kadphises. This expedition has sometimes been confused with the later and successful expedition of Kanishka against the Chinese in Turkestān.
page 30 note 3 Cf. Chavannes, , T'oung Pao, II, viii, p. 150Google Scholar; Konow, , CII., ii, p. lxxvGoogle Scholar.
page 31 note 1 Cf. Bachhofer's footnote 204 on p. 250 of his article. In the same footnote he puts forward another ingenious argument based on the so-called Chashtana statue from Māt near Mathurā, but the premises are too flimsy for his conclusion to be taken seriously. The only reason for connecting the statue in question with the Western Satrap Chashtana, son of Ysamotika, is the fragment of an inscription consisting of three aksharaa and part of a fourth, which Vogel read as…mosthana. Even if the reading Chashtana be correct, it is obviously far from proving that the statue represents the Western Satrap of that name or that he belonged to the Kushān royal family. Nor do we know when the statue was carved or when it was installed in the devakula. The devakula had been built in the reign of Huvishka's grandfather (presumably V'ima Kadphises, whose statue had been placed inside it), but had then fallen to ruin and was restored during the reign of Huvishka. It is probable, therefore, that the statues found inside it were set up either soon after its erection or after its renovation in the reign of Huvishka. But it is also possible that some of the statues, e.g. that of Kanishka, may have been brought from some other site and installed in the devakula some years after their execution. Whatever be the truth of the matter, we should clearly not be justified in drawing conclusions such as Bachhofer has done.
page 32 note 1 It is noteworthy that the Kālawān inscription of the year 134 = a.d. 76, makes no mention of a Kushān ruler at Taxila.
page 32 note 2 Apart from other considerations, the changes in script, language, and design in the coins of the two rulers point to an interval between them.
