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 Kuas. 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, takumasya, TAKTOO and TAKOOY. Vema Takhtu as an individual king of the Kua 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. Kujulas 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 str megas comes in between Kujula and Vima Kadphises, it was natural to assume that Vema Takhtu is none other than str 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 Kua coins and to Michael Alram and Osmund Bopearachchi for providing important literature. The exchange with Nicholas SimsWilliams over the years on matters Kua 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. 652654; 1998, pp. 8183; Sims-Williams/Cribb 19951996. Cf. Gbl, 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 Chiu-chiu-cheh [= Kujula! HF] of the Chinese source. Mac Dowall 2002, p. 167 b. Mac Dowall, ibid.

2 3

4 5

106

Harry Falk

str megas to Vima Kadphises becomes obvious through a look at the metrology of the coinage, where Vima Kadphises adds his heavy copper issue weighing 17 grams to the retained volume of issues of str megas, weighing 2.1 and 8.5 grams in their standard forms.6 The coinage of his father and predecessor is thus supplemented and not replaced by Vima Kadphises, a fact confirmed by numerous coin hoards where the coppers of both kings occurs side by side. With the Rabatak genealogy at hand it was also possible to attribute successfully a series of coins where vema was read before, but where the letters forming takho had remained enigmatic.

The coinage with names in Prakrit

Light-weight bull-and-camel, reading maharaja
Shortly after the Rabatak inscription was published, a large number of a new variety of coins was found, probably in Kashmir, which clearly was continuing the bull-and-camel coppers of Kujula, who himself had copPhotos: Harry Falk ied issues of the conquered Jihonika/Zeionises. The two Fig. 1: Two Kashmir coppers of Vema Takhtu, reading vema takho and vema takha types measure about 15 and 17 mm in diameter and weigh 3.9 and 4.9 g on average. The bull side bears an inscription in strange but unambiguous Greek letters which will be dealt with below. On the camel side two sorts of texts in Kharoh can be found, one shorter and one longer. 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, while the name occurs in the nominative: of the Great king, the son of the gods, Vema and not *vemasa of Vema. This construction explains itself as an abbreviation in the light of the longer version8:
maharajasa rajatirajasa devaputrasa vema takho Of Vema Takhu, of the Great King, the king over kings, the son of the gods.
6 7 8 Mac Dowall 2002, p. 168 b, SM5. Senior 2001, p. 221, B12.2; Sims-Williams/Cribb 19951996, p. 117, variety 7 b. Senior 2001, p. 221, B12.1; Sims-Williams/Cribb 19951996, p. 116, variety 7 a.

The Name of Vema Takhtu

107

The closing takho is occasionally followed by a dividing line (fig. 1 left). Only with the full reading do we get a form which can be understood as a genitive, being takho, Skt. *takho, of a base takhu. Species of both varieties continue coming to the market and it is obvious that large amounts of them were once in circulation. With regard to the personal name the usual inscriptional flaws can be observed, and so vema can look like vama or voma, and takho often comes as takha, the small slanting o-stroke having been omitted (fig. 1 right).

Heavy-weight Bull-and-Camel reading maharaya

This Kashmir edition must be contrasted with another series of larger coppers, weighing about 10.5 g.9 The full legend goes:
maharayasa / rayatirayasa devaputrasa vema tako mahatasa Of the Great King, the Overlord of kings, the son of the gods, of Vema Taku the Great.

The reading tako is justified in only one case, Cribb, type 6 a, where an ordinary ka shows a slanting -o-vowel. The other cases are such that a ko is very unlikely, and the respective letter looks like hi (type 6 e) or kta (type 6 c). It can be assumed from these differences that the die-cutter was not very familiar with the letter that he was expected to inscribe. A guess at a kto in his exemplar can be justified, but needs a clear example for verification. In any case, none of the variants seems to contain an aspirated kha, so that the orthography is closer to the Greek versions to be dealt with below. In this one clear case known to me again a genitive is required and therefore I take tako, Skt. *tako, as a genitive of *taku; for the reconstructable genitive *takto the basic form is *taktu. In several cases the final mahatasa is truncated to maha or masa for want of space. This series of large coppers uses a different language than the small ones; it writes maharaya instead of maharaja and, as we saw, tako or *takto instead of takho. So, most probably, the issuing place is not identical with the one of the small variety.

The odd-one-out
The legend on the smaller coins from Kashmir was presented above. Errington/ Curtis 2007 again speak about the various issues of Vema Takhtu, with examples on p. 69, where no. 9 is supposed to show one of the Kashmir copper variety. However, in fact it does not really belong to this group. The obverse shows the bull and the legend in Greek letters with a clear OOHMO below the bull.
9 The variants are dealt with in Sims-Williams/Cribb 19951996, p. 115 f., under type 6 with varieties a to e.

108

Harry Falk

///japotra-mahakadavasa[+++]///

japotra should be restored as maharaja-potra, the grandson of the Great King. This same person is also mahkatrapa. Unfortunately, his name is only preserved in the lower parts of three letters and cannot be reconstructed. Fig. 2: Kashmir copper Since the obverse gives the name of the king it is of the Mahkatrapa to be expected that a grandson of the same Vema, for whom the same coin type was originally designed, changed the reverse legend to his own name for reasons unknown to us. There is a long tradition of mentioning the overlord on the obverse and a governor or sub-king on the reverse. This seems to be a further case. Vema Takhtu came to power rather late because his father Kujula reigned until old age. So it is not surprising that Vema succeeded Kujula at an age when he already had grown-up grandsons. This coin also shows that some of the persons called mahkatrapa in Kua time inscriptions from Mathura10 and elsewhere do not necessarily belong to ousted Katrapa families, but could be of pure Kua descent.

The dpakara Buddha

The Kharoh forms takho or tako/takto as genitives have a very clear parallel in an inscription, known since long, on the tenon of a dpakara Buddha turning the wheel of law (fig. 3). Presently, the statue is at home in the Army Museum, Rawalpindi, and apart from a short notice in ASIAR 19121913, Part I, p. 33, and its treatment in Konow 1929, p. 134, is unpublished so far. The text has been edited by Konow from a rubbing as dhivhakarasa takhtidrea karide, rendered as Of Dpakara, made by Takhtidra, without being questioned.11 I have referred to his traditional reading before,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. The mu and the kho are mutilated in their upper part, leading to more separate lines at the left end than originally cut. The text reads from the stone as:
dhivhakarasa takhto daamukho (Statue) of the Dpakara, a pious donation of Takhtu.
10 11 12 Falk 20022003, p. 38. Cf. Salomon/Schopen 2002, p. 21. Falk 2001, p. 134.

Photo: Harry Falk

The reverse depicts the usual camel, but the inscription is not one of those given above, but completely different. It reads (fig. 2):

The Name of Vema Takhtu

109

The khto can be questioned since the vowel-stroke traverses the whole of the kha-bend, so that the letter can be taken as a khti or a khto. Since daamukho, pious donation, always requires the donors name in the genitive, it must be hidden in what I read as takhto rather than takhti. For an understanding of the inscription we have to supply a statue, pratim, after dhivhakarasa; otherwise the person called Takhtu (or Takhti) would refer to himself as Producer of light, which would be in line with str megas, who shows Mithra with the suns rays on the obverse of his coins, but for such a surmise the pieces style looks too young. 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.

Photo: Abdul Samad

Fig. 3: The dpakara of Takhtu

Stone inscriptions in Bactrian script

There are two inscriptions where Vema Takhtu is mentioned in Kua dynastic records. The first instance is the well-known Dasht-e Nwur inscription, not very well preserved on top of a mountain, and reliably edited by Fussman13, who read AO OOHMO TAK[PI?] at a time when this king was not known otherwise. Fussman looked for a form of Kadphises, as everyone else would have done at that time, and guessed, with due reserve at a mtathse ou erreur du lapicide.14 The second case is found on the Rabatak stone slab, where Sims-Williams could read OOHMO (T)AKTOO AO, with some letters not perfectly pre13 14 Fussman 1974, p. 18, pl. III. Fussman 1974, p. 15.

110

Harry Falk

served. However, comparing Fussmans safe reading of the initial consonant allowed a restoration to TAKTOO. Due to the comparative research done by Sims-Williams, it is now common knowledge that Bactrian words ending in O are pronounced without the -o; and therefore a written OOHMO TAKTOO AO was once pronounced similar to wem takto a.

Coin inscriptions in Greek language and script

Very recently, a hoard of gold coins was found in Peshawar city, mostly issued by Vima Kadphises, with a few pieces of Kanika limiting the date of the deposit. Amongst the Vima Kadphises coins were two types never seen before. According to their iconography and palaeography, they have very little to do with the large number of gold coin types known so far from this king. Part of the treasure was published by O. Bopearachchi.15 On the oldest coins, Vima Kadphises calls himself son of the king Wemo Takto the Kua, BACIEC OOHMO TAKTOOY KOOANOY YIOC. Removing the Greek genitive ending we are faced with a stem takto. On one coin a variant16 *TAKOOY is found, where at first glance the delta looks like just another writing mistake but for which it might pay to return to the Kashmir coppers. On most of the about 30 pieces which I have seen so far, the left and bottom part is off the flan. The top starts with a sort of theta, derived from E+I, but often misshapen and used as a text divider. Then follows BAC or BAC, certainly standing for BACIEYC, followed by a second text divider and BAC, standing for BACIEN. Below the animal OOHMO might be expected, but it is nowhere discernible; on the left side, behind the animal the text ends in ///OO, which could be the rest of TAKOO. The OO is present on several pieces, the is preserved just once. This soft variety TAKOO, found in two of our variant groups, seems to show that the dental was pronounced with less impetus than the velar sound in front of it.

The so-called grmarakaka seal

Undealt with so far in our context is a very peculiar seal lodged in the British Museum, acc.no. 1892.113.187. It was edited by Callieri 1997 as Cat U 7.24 as read by R. Garbini, who also published it separately in 2001, reading correctly the first line as maharajadevaputra. 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 Kua king. However, the name of this king written in the second line was read by Garbini as gramarakkhaasa, translated as defender of the village.
15 16 Bopearachchi 2007 and 2008. Bopearachchi 2007, p. 53, no. 5; 2008, p. 6, no. 3; the variant spelling is not noted on p. 9.

The Name of Vema Takhtu

111

Fig. 4: Seal of the mahrja grmatakhtua (after Callieri 1997, Cat U 7.24, courtesy British Museum)

This makes little sense and therefore the seal was absent from the recent discussions about Kua genealogy. This rather irritating reading deserves a closer look (fig. 4). It is obvious at first glace that the alleged ra is in fact a clearly written ta. The following compounded letter was taken by Garbini as a sa in its secondary form or simply a horizontal stroke on top, below which is a kha, below which is a symbol which cannot be meaningfully read though it resembles a small TRA. Taking into account the preceding character RA this conjunct symbol might be KHSA.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, but that the kha has a slightly curved upper part. We see also that the letter beneath it is not a tra, but a tu. The reading therefore is grama-takhtuasa. Leaving aside the grama, we have a maharaja-devaputra, who comes by the name of takhtua, followed by a genitive sa. If this seal has anything to do with the Kuas, then takthua must refer to *Takhtu as known from the coinage. But how to account for the grama-? I propose to regard gra as a miscued version of e, with the a being a variant of va, graphically distinguished by a stroke to the right at the foot of the vertical, so that it looks almost like a ha, for which it is occasionally mistaken, particularly in the coin legend of Vima Kadphises. The precise pronunciation of a is not known; the opinio communis is to take it as similar to w as in wheel, with a slight u preceding it. This view can be supported by the spelling uvima in Vima Kadphises name, as written in Kharoh at Kalatse,18 and in the Kharoh letter a being constantly used in ima-kalpia on the same kings coinage. A scribe may have developed the habit to write a with a small loop at the upper bend ( ); when furnished with the e-stroke, this combination e looks rather similar to an ordinary gra, for which the engraver took it.
17 18 Garbini 2001, p. 196. Konow 1929, p. 81.

112

Harry Falk

It seems much easier to suppose such a miswriting and end up with an intended ema takhtuasa, than to explain a grama in front of the takhtuasa in a Kua dynasty personal name, and so I read the seal as:
maharajadevaputra (e- gra)matakhtuasa (Seal) of the Great King, son of the gods, ema Takhtua.

It is evident from a series of seals of other kings like Kanika I19, Kanika II or III20, or Gondophares21 that this is not a personal seal, but made to stamp goods and documents in any of the provinces. 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. Startling is the extended form takhtuasa, as if the name takhtu had received a thematic ending, in order to allow inflexion parallel to a noun ending in -a.

Vema Takuma in M
The family sanctuary at M, across the river from Mathura, held at least two statues of Kua kings, one of them sitting on a throne, sword across his lap, the right hand raised and before its mutilation, probably, holding a flower. On the flat base between his boots an inscription22 is found, 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), furnished with a park (rama), lotus pond (pukarii), a well (udapna) and a doorway (drakohaka). The first two lines describe the portrayed figure as mahrjo rjtirjo devaputro kuaputro the Great King, Overlord of Kings, Son of the Gods, son of the Kua. The line ends hi vema takumasya. On a partly destroyed surface, hi can only be read with light from a very flat angle, with a clear a, and no trace of the -stroke left. Of the two letters vema the lower half is almost gone, but the upper part is preserved, showing definitely that vema is to be read and not vima.23 Syntactically, these last three words must be joined to the last two lines, making the bakanapati an officer in the service of hi vema takuma, and we are free to guess if this Vema Takuma is identical with the mahrja or not. In any case it seems hazardous to separate vema takumasya from the already wellknown vema takho of the coinage. And since the bakanapati was appointed
19 20 21 22 23 Thaplyal 1972, p. 43. Sims-Williams/Tucker 2005, p. 588. Thaplyal 1972, p. 42. Fussman 1998, p. 606 f. In contrast to Lders, Fussman (1998, p. 607) could not see either hi or the ve of vema. I can prove both by own pictures which I can send on request.

The Name of Vema Takhtu

113

by him, the second of the Kuas, the portrayed mahrja can either be Vema Takuma himself or his father, Kujula Kadphises. This open question has received different answers which need not concern us here, since we are only dealing with the name as such. Can takuma be linked to takhu, taktu or takhtu in any way? That a kha, written and pronounced, corresponds to a ka in a more polished parlance is known from a multitude of examples, e.g. original Skt. bhiku turning into bhikkhu in many vernaculars. The other way round is only sparingly attested, e.g. in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, where we find uka as a wrong or hyper-Sanskritic form, reconstructed from the correct Skt. ukh, denoting a certain vessel.24 Since it would have been possible to represent an original ka in the Gandharan language and in the Karoh script, the ka in takuma cannot stand at the root of the variant spellings. On the contrary, it must be regarded as a learned derivative of an original pronunciation containing a kha. It is more difficult to account for the additional syllable ma. There is no third syllable in the genitive takho, but there seems to be one in takhtua-sa on the seal. However, both in takumasya 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. The m may be intended to bridge the hiatus between the two vowels, as it does occasionally in Pali.25 In Gndhr spellings in Kharoh script such a hiatus is rather common, while it is dreaded in Sanskritic orthography. Despite the few Pali cases, m as a hiatus bridger is not used in Sanskrit, where a v would have been used after u. Therefore, another solution might be found in the larger bull-and-camel coppers, where, as said above, the legend regularly ends in mahatasa, in some cases shortened to maha or masa (Cribb type 6 c). If such a coin was used to ascertain the correct spelling, the final tak(t)o masa could be read as takomasa, brushed up to takumasya. However, such a misreading would presuppose a rather vague knowledge on the side of the bakanapati about the name of his master.

Yen Gao Chen

For the sake of completeness a word may be permitted concerning the vexed question of Vemas name in Chinese.26 In the Hu-Han-Shu the second king, succeeding Kujula Kadphises, is given as Yan-gao-zhen, where yan represents Vema, as generally admitted. Gao-zhen, however, does not represent Taktu, for obvious phonetic reasons, and it does not represent Kadphises, since
24 Edgerton 1953, 2.25. 25 Oberlies 2001, p. 124, 25. 26 Cf. Sims-Williams 1998, p. 90.

114

Harry Falk

Kujula Kadphises name is spelled in the same line. To expect a third Vema would require literary or numismatic evidence, which is absent. A look at the Dasht-e Nawur inscriptions provides at least a possible alternative: the Bactrian text reads OOHMO TAKTOO KOANO,27 whereas the Kharoh parallel on the same stone has nothing but the genitive vhama kuasa, with no takto at all and no space for a na between a and sa.28 It seems possible that the Chinese envoys heard about the history of the five tribes of the Ye Chi, including the Kuas, spelled Kuei-Shuang (), from one source and about the ruling king in India, i.e. Vema Kua, from another, without realizing that both terms contain a common element. Spelling variations are more or less the rule when it comes to Indian place names in early Chinese literature. A further spelling variation in Chinese regarding the Kuas would not surprise given the many ways Kua names occur even in Indian sources. Although kua or khua (Taxila silver scroll) is the most common Kharoh spelling for the family name, another informant may have used gua, as the name is spelled in Panjtar, Manikiala or Kamra. Since the form Vema Ku<a> was actually used at Dasht-e Nwur by the Kharoh scribe, this occasional variant address, when pronounced vema gua, may well have lead to yen gao chen, if we presuppose diffent informants with different spelling habits.

Summary
The representation of Kua personal names in Indo-Aryan languages must have been a difficult affair judging from the numerous forms of, e.g., the name of Kujula Kadphises.29 In its Kharoh spellings no Kujula Kadphises is identical with the canonised kalpia as used by Vima Kadphises, his grandson on his coins. With regard to the first name, common to Vema Takhtu and Vima Kadphises, 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. The first part of the name is given in Kharoh as vema on the coins, probably as ema on the seal; the Brhm at M reads vema as well. The Bactrian inscriptions have OOHMO as do the Greek legends of the coins of his son. Every language and script concerned would be able to express an i, but all cases present us nothing but e, an expression of the quantity of this vowel. Vima Kadphises, however, used i on his coins consistently. From the spellings in Brhm inscriptions of kanika/kaneka and huvika/huveka we know that both vowels were used convertibly; and most likely, some scribes preferred the one and others the other variety.
27 Sims-Williams/Cribb 19951996, p. 95. 28 Fussman 1974, pl. V, text IV, line 3. 29 Fussman 1974, p. 15; Mukherjee 19961997, p. 39.

The Name of Vema Takhtu

115

For the second part I propose to regard takhtu of the seal as the basic form, disregarding the thematic extention. Starting from an -u-noun a genitive form *takhto would comply with Sanskrit grammar. This genitive was simplified according to Prakrit rules to takho, spelled /takkho/, on the Kashmir coppers and deaspirated to tako, spelled /takko/, on the larger bull-and-camel coppers (Cribb type 6); forms with kta exist but their vocalisation is presently uncertain. The phonetically simplified basic form *takhu most likely was used to create the Sanskritic form takuma. The kh must stand for a velar sound, not a laryngeal one, since the Greek versions have little means to express the aspiration, but they would certainly have used a X (chi) if a laryngeal sound was to be heard, as in the case of Kharahostes, where the genitive is spelled kharaostasa in Kharoh and XAPAHCTEIC in Greek. The t was preserved on the seal in Kharoh, in the Greek TAKTOOY genitive and in the Bactrian TAKTOO; the variant TAKOO 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. We now come to the closing vowel. When we disregard the clear genitive forms in -o, we are left with the two thematizations takhtuasa and takumasya, both presupposing a closing -u. Since the basic form and the genitive can be so much alike in the NorthWestern vernaculars, attempts were made to thematise the foreign word, in order to obtain a form which could easily be recognized as a genitive by everyone. So we get takhtu-a-sa on the Kharoh seal and taku-m-a-sya at M. In short, we see three independent developments, all starting from one basic form: a) takhtu takhu takuma b) takhtu taktu/TAKTOO TAKOO taku c) takhtu takhtua

References
Bopearachchi, O. 2007: Some observations on the chronology of the early Kushans. In: Gyselen, R. (ed.): Des Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides: donnes pour lhistoire et la gographie historique. Bures-sur-Yvette (Res orientales 17), pp. 4153. 2008: Les premiers souverains kouchans: chronologie et iconographie montaire. In: Journal des Savant, Fasc. 1 (janvierjuin), pp. 356. Callieri, P. 1997: Seals and sealings from the North-West of the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan (4th century BC11th century AD). Local, Indian, Sasanian, Graeco-Persian, Sogdian, Roman. With contributions by E. Errington, R. Garbini, Ph. Gignoux, N. Sims-Williams, W. Zwalf. Naples (Istituto universitario orientale, Dissertationes 1).

116

Harry Falk

Edgerton, F. 1953: Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. Grammar and Dictionary. Vol. II: Dictionary. New Haven. Errington, E./V. S. Curtis 2007: From Persepolis to the Punjab. Exploring ancient Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. With contributions by J. Cribb, J.-M. Lafont, St. J. Simpson, H. Wang. London. Falk, H. 2001: The yuga of Sphujiddhvaja and the era of the Kuas. In: SRAA 7, pp. 121136. 20022003: Some inscribed images from Mathur revisited. In: Indo-Asiatische Zeitschrift 6/7, pp. 3147. Fussman, G. 1974: Documents pigraphiques kouchans. In: BEFEO 61, pp. 166. 1998: Linscription de Rabatak et lorigine de lre aka. In: JA 286, pp. 571651. Garbini, R. 2001: An interesting Carnelian seal of the Kusha period. In: Numismatic Studies 6, pp. 195199. Gbl, R. 1976: A catalogue of coins from Butkara I (Swt, Pakistan). Rome (Reports and Memoirs 4). Konow, S. 1929: Kharoshh Inscriptions with the Exception of Those of Aoka. Calcutta (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum 2,1). Mac Dowall, D. W. 2002: The Rabatak inscription and the nameless Kushan king. In: Cairo to Kabul. Afghan and Islamic Studies presented to Ralph Pinder-Wilson. Ed. by W. Ball and L. Harrow. London, pp. 163169. Mukherjee, B. N. 19961997: The names of the Kusha rulers. In: Journal of Ancient Indian History 20, pp. 3851. Oberlies, Th. 2001: Pli. A Grammar of the Language of the Theravda Tipiaka. Berlin/New York. Salomon, R./G. Schopen 2002: On an alleged reference to Amitbha in a Kharoh inscription on a Gandhran relief. In: Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 25, pp. 331. Senior, R. C. 2001: Indo-Scythian Coins and History. Vol. II: The illustrated catalogue of Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian coins. Lancaster/London. Sims-Williams, N. 1996: Nouveaux documents sur lhistoire et la langue de la Bactriane. In: CRAI 1996, pp. 633654. 1998: Further notes on the Bactrian inscription from Rabatak, with an appendix on the names of Kujula Kadphises and Vima Taktu in Chinese. In: N. SimsWilliams (ed.): Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies held in Cambridge, 11th to 15th September 1995. Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Wiesbaden (Beitrge zur Iranistik 17), pp. 7992. Sims-Williams, N./J. Cribb 19951996: A New Bactrian Inscription of Kanishka the Great. In: SRAA 4, pp. 75142. Sims-Williams, N./E. Tucker 2005: Avestan huuita- and its cognates. In: G. K. Schweiger (ed.): Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien, dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fnfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering (Studien zur Iranistik und Indogermanistik 3), pp. 587604. Thaplyal, K. K. 1972: Studies in Ancient Indian Seals. A study of North Indian seals and sealings from circa third century B.C. to mid-seventh century A.D. Lucknow.

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 Franois de Blois

2009

Harrassowitz Verlag Wiesbaden

Publication of this book was supported by a grant of the Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum.

Bibliograsche Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliograe; detaillierte bibliograsche Daten sind im Internet ber http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliograe; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2009 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Typesetting: Claudius Naumann Printing and binding: Memminger MedienCentrum AG Printed in Germany ISSN 0944-1271 ISBN 978-3-447-05937-4