319

ART. XIII.—Two Notes on Indian Numismatics, By E. J. RAPSON, M.A., M.E.A.S.

ON A COIN-LEGEND OP THE GRAECO-INDIAN KING HERMAEUS. THE regular Greek inscription on the coins of Hermaeus is BA2IAEQS SOTHPO2 | EPMAIOY; but, on some of his bronze coins, and on the whole bronze series issued by him conjointly with Kujula Kadphises,1 there appears an inscription which differs from this in two respects— (1) the substitution of 2THP0S for EQTHPOZ, and (2) the addition of the syllable ZY. The former of these two peculiarities has, by most scholars, been regarded as merely an engraver's mistake; but, in opposition to this view, it has been pointed out by M. Senart,2 that, whenever this Greek inscription on the obverse is accompanied by an Indian translation in Kharosthi characters on the reverse—that is to say, on certain bronze coins struck by Hermaeus alone, as distinguished from those struck by him conjointly with Kujula Kadphises—mahatasa is always found in the place of tratarasa, the regular equi- valent of SnTHPOE. STHPOZ can, therefore, scarcely be a mistake for ZOTHPOZ; and M. Senart is inclined to see in this strange form a new title indicative of some diminution in the power of Hermaeus. With regard to the second point, ZY has always been a well-known numismatic puzzle. It has generally been explained as some title, or as an abbreviation of some title,

1 Gardner, B.M. Oat., p. 65, Hermaeus, Nos. 45-50; and p. 120, Uermaeus and Kadphisea I. 2 Journal Asiatique, 1889 (vol. xiii, 8th series), p. 370. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 14 Sep 2018 at 16:03:46, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X0014571X 320 TWO NOTES ON INDIAN NUMISMATICS.

Scythic or Greek;l but here, too, the theory has been advanced2 that it is due to the mistake of an engraver, who repeated the final letters of the words SOTHPOS and EPMAIOY, which, in consequence of the arrangement of the inscription on the coins, are actually brought into juxtaposition. Some confusion might, no doubt, have been avoided, in this instance, had the numismatists adopted in their catalogues some method of indicating this arrangement. Several writers, who have dealt with this question, have evidently been under the impression that his ZY occurs on the coins as a prefix to the name EPMAIOY; and, it must be confessed, that, apart from illustrations, the descriptions given in the catalogues, where the whole in- scription is printed continuously as BAZIAEOS SOTHPOS 2Y EPMAIOY, by no means discourage this delusion. Now, as a matter of fact, the name EPMAIOY stands alone beneath the bust of the king, and the remainder of the legend, which is separated from the name, is written over the bust. This distinction between the two portions of the legend might easily be indicated by some method of printing, or by the use of some dividing sign; and if this had been done in the coin-catalogues—if, for instance, the inscription had been printed as BAZIAEnSSTHPOZZY | EPMAIOY—some very natural misconception would have been prevented.3 All previous attempts to explain this enigmatical coin- \ legend are open to one or more of the following criticisms: j (1) they are founded upon the dangerous assumption j that all the specimens of this particular class of coins bear the same engraver's mistake or mistakes; (2) they depend upon conjectures, which it would be difficult to support by

1 Lassen, Ind. Alt., ii, p. 363, note 1, as = Saka, or id., p. 389, as = Yueh-chi; Cunningham, Num. Ohrm. 1892, p. 46, as = Suyyfc^r; Senart, Journ. As. (I.e.), as = 2ipov. 8 Oldenberg, Zeit.f. Num. 1881, p. 298, note 1. 3 It -would scarcely then have been possible to invent the King Sy-Hermaeus, who appears in some of the earlier numismatic works as the successor of Hermaeus. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 14 Sep 2018 at 16:03:46, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X0014571X TWO NOTES ON INDIAN NUMISMATICS. 321

the evidence of other coins of the time; and (3) they leave out of sight what should be a main guiding principle in. dealing with these bilingual coins, viz., that, with very few exceptions, the Greek and KharosthI inscriptions exactly correspond. In attempting, therefore, to offer a solution of, this problem, which shall not be open to these criticisms, it may be assumed, in the first place, that just as EPMAIOY = Heramayasa and BASIAEO2 = maharajasa, so the re- maining portion of the Greek legend ZTHPOEZY = the remaining portion of the KharosthI legend mahatasa. Now ZTHPOSSY is certainly not a Greek word. It must, therefore, probably be' some Indian word transcribed into Greek characters. If so, -ZY is simply the termina- tion of the genitive case=the Sanskrit -si/a or the Prakrit -ssa. Fortunately, it is possible to quote a parallel from the coins themselves. On the small bronze coins which, bear the name Kujula Kadaphes,1 the genitive Khusanasa of the KharosthI inscription is regularly represented by the Greek XOPANCY.2 There can be little doubt, then, that STHPOSZY is a genitive form, and this transliteration of the genitive termination by the Greek -ZY may, perhaps, not be without some philological importance as showing that, in the transition from the Sanskrit -sya to the Prakrit -ssa, the sound of the semi-vowel y had not entirely dis- appeared. It is necessary, therefore, to search for some Prakrit form, which will admit at the same time of being transliterated by ZTHPOSZY and rendered by mahatasa. Now there can be little doubt that this word has been suggested by the ZfiTHPOZ which, in the earlier coins of Hermaeus, occupied the same position; and it is quite possible that a false analogy may have influenced the transliteration;

1 Gardner, B.M. Cat, p. 123. 2 In this case, again, it has been proposed, in direct opposition to the unanimous testimony of the coins, to regard XOPANCY as an engraver's mistake for XOPANOY- This tendency to tamper with documents cannot le too strongly deprecated. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 14 Sep 2018 at 16:03:46, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X0014571X 322 TWO NOTES ON INDIAN NUMISMATICS,

but, apart from this possibility, there are no great difficulties in the way of supposing the existence of a Prakrit form *$terassa=the Pali therassa, and, like it, derived from the Sanskrit sthavirasya. The only point in this derivation which seems to present any difficulty is the representation of the Sanskrit sth by the Prakrit st. Instances of a similar loss of aspiration in Prakrit are, however, not hard to find j1 and, moreover, the observation just made must be borne in mind, viz., that the reading ZT-, instead of Z0-, may, after all, be due to the false analogy with SfiTHPOS. With regard to the correspondence in meaning between this hypothetical *sterassa and mahatasa, some curious and interesting points present themselves. A general meaning of the Sanskrit sthavira (=" ang-esehen, gratis," Bohtlingk and Roth) might, indeed, be roughly expressed by mahatasa ; but there can be little doubt that sthavira and them had, at this period and in this part of India, acquired a specially Buddhist meaning. The Buddhistic tendencies of the earlier Graeco-Indian king Menander are well known. Is it possible that the epithet 2TH POZEY marks Hermaeus also as a follower of the law of Buddha ?

THE GOD SIVA ON KUSANA COINS.

By a strange chance, the inscription OkhO, which accompanies the figure of Siva on the coins of Kaniska and his successors, has been read in every imaginable way but the right one. Formerly the reading OKPO was universally accepted, and explained, in its application to Siva, as equivalent to the Sanskrit ugra " the terrible," or vahra " the cruel." Since Dr. Stein's discovery,2 that

1 Johannson, Der dialekte der sogen. Shahbazgarhi-redaldion des 14 edicte At'oka's (Actes du 8me Congres Inter, des Orientalistes: section ii, ler fasc, p. 129), quotes the form sr{e)stamati as representing the Sk. srestha-. 3 Babylonian and Oriental Record, vol. i, p. 155, "Zoroastrian Deities on Indo-Scythian Coins." Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 14 Sep 2018 at 16:03:46, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X0014571X TWO NOTES ON INDIAN NUMISMATICS. 32S

the modified form of the Greek P, viz. t>, which is in- variably used in this case, regularly represents ,the sibilant s, the word has been read okso, and regarded as a tran- scription of the Sanskrit uksd " the bull.": Midway between these two readings comes one suggested by Dr. Hoernle,2 viz. OHPO, and supposed by him to represent the Sanskrit vira " the hero." This last reading did not attract the attention which it deserved, for, though undoubtedly, as being previous to the date of Dr. Stein's discovery, it is incorrect with regard to the third letter, yet it has the merit of insisting on a fact which has been strangely overlooked by numis- matists, viz. that the second letter is H and not K. This fact is patent from an examination of the coins. For its demonstration, one need go no farther than the names of the kings Kaniska and Huviska, as they appear on the obverse of the same coins, which bear this O k t> O on the reverse— KU.HH\>K\=Kaneski, and OOh\> K\ = Ooeski. It is, indeed, scarcely too much to say that the two characters are never confused on coins, except in the case of the late barbarous issues, which must belong to a period when the Greek letters were no longer understood. They are frequently enough confused in the drawings which illus- trate the older numismatic works,3 for the draughtsman has here, as in so many other cases, been unconsciously influenced by his own ideas; but this only affords another instance, if one were needed, of the futility for scientific purposes of eye-copies of inscriptions. The correct reading of Okt>O is, therefore, undoubtedly Oeso or Hoeso ; and this latter form suggests a Prakrit *haveso or *Aaveso, which would represent the Sanskrit Bhavesa " the Lord of Being," a well-known title of Siva. The representation of the three sibilants of Sanskrit is never completely carried out in the Prakritic dialects, and

1 Drouin, Eevue Numismatique, 1888, p. 207; followed by Cunningham, Num. Chron. 1892, p. 62. 2 Quoted by Drouin (I.e.). » E.g. Ariana Antigua, plate xii, 4, etc. Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 14 Sep 2018 at 16:03:46, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X0014571X 324 TWO NOTES OK INDIAN NUMISMATICS.

any such nice distinction would be especially difficult in the case of Prakrit words expressed in the Kusano-Greek alphabet. It is, therefore, not so hard to believe that the t>, which more commonly represents the lingual if s, may, in this case, be used for the palatal if s. In another instance, s is represented by the Greek Z, i.e. Vi&akha= BRf^TO ; and it is important to notice that on one coin1 OU-\0=oezo is actually written instead of the more familiar 0Kt>0. On a unique coin formerly belonging to General Cunningham, and now in the British Museum, Siva is represented, together with his consort Uma, whose name appears as OMMO. This coin was published by General Cunningham in the Numismatic Chronicle for 1892, plate xiii, 1; but, in his description on p. 119, he wrongly refers to the female deity as " the goddess Nanaia . . . holding her peculiar symbol; . . to left, NANO." These particulars would apply to the next coin represented on the plate; but on the coin in question, not only is the inscription OMMO quite distinct, but the symbol which the female deity holds in her hand—it may perhaps be a flower—is quite different from the well-known symbol of Nanaia; and we may, there- fore, unhesitatingly add Uma to the list of Indian deities represented on Kusana coins.

1 This coin is published by Gardner, B.M. Cat., " Bazodeo," No. 3 (p. 159), but without any notice of its remarkable inscription.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 14 Sep 2018 at 16:03:46, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X0014571X