A Political History of Parthia/Chapter 3

by Neilson Carel Debevoise

 

CHAPTER III

THE INDO-IRANIAN FRONTIER

EVIDENCE for the story of the eastern frontier of Parthia is scanty, for events there were too remote to interest western historians and archaeological work in eastern Iran has hardly begun. Indian history, which might supplement our inadequate information from the west, helps but little, since, in spite of considerable evidence both literary and archaeological in character and years of study by excellent scholars, the chronology of the period remains still uncertain. Fortunately the accounts of Chinese travelers and historians are fairly complete and accurate, and they possess the additional advantage that events mentioned can be accurately dated. From them, more than from any other source, we can obtain a few clues to the still uncertain question of the Indo-Scythian kingdoms.^[1]

In the period between 174 and 165 b.c.^[2] a tribe known to the Chinese as the Yüeh-chi, who dwelt in the province of Kansu, were attacked by their neighbors, the Hsiung-nu or Huns. As a blow delivered on the last of a series of balls is transmitted to others in contact with it, so this movement of the Huns was reflected far and wide among the tribes to the west. The Greek name for the Yüeh-chi is somewhat uncertain; they were a composite group of which the Tochari formed the bulk and the Arsi the ruling or most important element.^[3] When the Yüeh-chi were driven from their homeland, they came into conflict with a tribe known as the Sak (modern Sai or Sē), who lived in the region of the Jaxartes River. These were the Sacae or Scyths of the Greek and Roman writers, and in this case probably the Sacaraucae, one of the two principal divisions of the Sacae.^[4] The Yüeh-chi occupied the lands of the Sak and forced the Sak to move westward before them into Bactria.^[5] The Sacae, by this time a large horde consisting partly of Sacaraucae and Massagetae and partly of other smaller groups gathered en route, were thus forced into Ta-hsia (Bactria).^[6]

Determination of the time when this migration came into conflict with the Parthians depends upon the uncertain date of the Parthian expansion to the east. While the Parthian invasion of India under Mithradates I (171–138 b.c.) can hardly be styled a "legend,"^[7] there is no good evidence as yet for such conquests beyond the statement of Orosius, a late writer of uncertain accuracy.^[8] If by Hydaspes he meant not the Indian Jhelum but some other stream, the Porali, or possibly even the Median Hydaspes of Vergil,^[9] then Parthian conquests in India must remain in doubt. Orosius was influenced by the post-Augustan literary tradition, in which the gem-bearing Hydaspes figured prominently.^[10]

If the identification of Turiva^[11] with Traxiana^[12] in the upper Ochus River valley be accepted, then the reign of Mithradates I brought the Parthians into a position where contact with the advancing Sacae was inevitable. In 130 b.c. Phraates II engaged the services of a body of Saca mercenaries (see pp. 35 f.), and shortly thereafter the flood of invaders must have reached the eastern provinces. The remnants of the Bactrian kingdom were swept away by these hordes,^[13] against whom the Parthians threw the full weight of their military forces. The severity of this struggle is shown by the fact that two Parthian kings, Phraates II (138/37–ca 128 b.c.) and his successor Artabanus II (ca 128–124/23 b.c.), lost their lives in battle against the Sacae.

Individual groups may have penetrated into the heart of the Parthian empire, perhaps even as far as Mesopotamia; but the majority of the Sacae were turned back by the exertions of the Parthians, and thus the Roman orient was spared their ravages. The explanation for the close interrelation in later times between the Sacae and the Parthians lies in the contacts which occurred as the hordes moved slowly southward toward India, contacts which must also explain the Parthian cultural influences at Taxila in India. While a portion of the Sacae evidently turned southward from the great road and entered India through Ki-pin,^[14] others must have passed through eastern Parthia and entered India perhaps through the Bolân Pass in the Brahui Mountains.^[15]

Even the energetic Mithradates II was apparently unable to regain complete control of the eastern provinces, though the Sacae may have acknowledged some form of vassalage. After his death one of his successors sometime between 87 and 75 b.c. made a series of campaigns in the east and struck coins to commemorate the recovery of Margiana, Traxiana, and Aria.^[16]

When the Sacae entered India remains uncertain, and new evidence must be forthcoming to settle the question. The date of the first Indo-Scythian king, Maues,^[17] offers no solution, since it hinges on the doubtful interpretation of a much discussed word in the Taxila copper-plate inscription of the satrap Patika^[18] and on the uncertain dating of an era. Probably Maues should be identified with the Great King Moga of the inscription, which is dated in the year 78 of some unspecified era. The month name is Parthian. Since 169 b.c. is out of the question, this cannot be the Arsacid era, which began in 247 b.c.; even if the 78 stands for 178, the date would be 69 b.c.^[19] Rapson suggested that the era may possibly mark the capture of Seistan by Mithradates I;^[20] but a date as late as 9–6 b.c. for the inscription is favored by some on the theory that the era began after the death of Mithradates II in 88/87 b.c.^[21]

Heretofore Parthia has been considered almost solely from the Graeco-Roman viewpoint. Parthian influence in India must be regarded as an Indo-Iranian culture in which other elements such as the Hellenistic are present. In a similar manner many phases of the Parthian occupation of Dura-Europus and Seleucia on the Tigris which hitherto have found no counterpart in western Hellenism may be explained as local Graeco-Iranian. That in the Parthian period both India and Mesopotamia faced more toward Iran than toward Hellenized Syria has only recently been recognized.^[22] Proof for this lies in material excavated at Taxila, Seleucia, and Dura-Europus, some of which has already appeared in print, though much is still in press or remains unpublished in museums.

From the time of the Indian invasion by the Sacae, the latter are so closely connected both politically and culturally with the Parthians that they cannot be distinguished one from the other. The fact that "very few true Parthian coins are found in India"^[23] furnishes additional evidence for the belief that the Sacae and the Pahlavas were independent of the Parthian empire, though they had been vassals of that power.^[24] In spite of the warlike reputation which the Parthians attained in the west by virtue of their successes against the Romans, they were a people quick to realize and profit by the advantages of peace. Wanton destruction was not one of their characteristics; they had rather a canny instinct for a pact advantageous to both parties. The ability of Mithradates, combined with his victories on the battlefield, would result in agreements for mutual benefit. Treaties would be drawn up which according to the usual Parthian custom bound the signatories within their loose feudal system and guaranteed commercial rights. Indian officialdom probably contained both Parthians and Sacae, but little evidence can be obtained from their names, for one of the first acts of a newly elevated officer would be the adoption of a garb and name suitable to his new station.

For the organization of the Indo-Scythian kingdoms and their relations with the feudatories of southeastern Iran we must depend almost entirely upon numismatic evidence of unknown provenience. Though Rapson's arrangement^[25] may fit all the facts now available, new evidence may bring radical changes at any time.

Normally there were three contemporary rulers of royal rank in eastern Iran and northwestern India: a "king of kings" in Iran, some junior member of his family associated with him, and another "king of kings" in India. The junior member in Iran usually became in due course the supreme ruler in India.^[26] The belief that the title "king of kings" was not used in Parthia from 88 to 57 b.c.^[27] led logically to the correct conclusion that the rulers of Iran and India were independent of Parthia; but at least one case of its use in Parthia in 64 b.c. is known.^[28]

In eastern Iran the ruler issued coins together with that member of the family associated with him in the government. The legend of the king is in Greek, and that of the prince, on the reverse, in Kharosthi; since the use of Kharosthi in this period is known from Arachosia only, we may infer that the prince governed that territory.

The evidence of the coins^[29] and the Taxila plate inscription suggests that Maues conquered Gandhara, including Pushkalavati to the west and Taxila to the east of the Indus River. But in the eastern Punjab the conquests of Maues remained to be completed by two of his successors, the first of whom was Azes I.^[30] This king associated with himself one Azilises, who eventually succeeded him.^[31] The arrangement of these and the following rulers is based solely on the coinage; in the present case Azes, as the elder, appears on the obverse with a Greek inscription, and Azilises, on the reverse, with one in Kharosthi.^[32]

Shortly after the first Saca king commenced his rule in India, a monarch with the Parthian name of Vonones established himself in eastern Iran and took the imperial title. His reign cannot be dated, and it seems impossible to identify him with Vonones I of Parthia (a.d. 8–11).^[33] The dynasty established by Vonones is often called "Pahlava" to distinguish it from the contemporary ruling family of Parthia. Azilises as king of kings in India made further conquests in the Punjab; but either voluntarily or perforce he relinquished Arachosia, which came under the control of Vonones. It was ruled by Vonones' brother Spalahores, who held the territory conjointly with his son Spalagadames.^[34] One of the Indian princes, Azes II, became associated with Azilises in the Indian kingship and eventually succeeded to the supreme power.

Vonones was succeeded by Spalirises, who has been identified as a brother of Vonones solely because the coins of Spalirises bear the legend "the king's brother" and Vonones is generally believed to be the king in question.^[35] Spalirises' son Azes became ruler in Arachosia; and, as we have seen, he was later king of kings in India as Azes II. The next successor whom we know in the Iranian line was a certain Orthagnes. His Iranian name means "victorious," and his coins bear a winged Victory similar to those on the coinage of Vonones I of Parthia, though whether the symbol refers to some conquest or merely to the king's name we cannot tell.

In Arachosia two men were associated at this time in joint rule, Gondopharnes and Guda (or Gudana), possibly a brother of the king of kings Orthagnes. Gondopharnes left Arachosia in a.d. 19 to assume supreme command in India, where he became the most famous of the Pahlava kings. His name also is Iranian, "winner of glory." The coins lead us to suspect that he included within his realm the Pahlava and Saca territory in southeastern Iran and northwestern India as well as the Kabul valley, where large numbers of his coins were found. Abdagases, a nephew(?) of Gondopharnes, acted as viceroy in the new Iranian provinces. Gondopharnes was still in power in a.d. 45, but we do not know the date of his death.^[36] On the basis of numismatic evidence Rapson has suggested that Gondopharnes may have captured some territory from the Parthians. His coins, whether struck alone or with his nephew or his commanders in chief, usually bear the symbol ; this mark is found counterstruck on the coins of Orodes II (57–37/36 b.c.) and Artabanus III (a.d. 12–38).^[37]

Gondopharnes was succeeded by Pacores, who bears a good Parthian name. Numismatic evidence suggests that he was suzerain in southeastern Iran and that he controlled at least a part of India. His coins, bearing a figure of Victory similar to those of Orthagnes, have been discovered at Taxila; they have also the Gondopharnes symbol and the legend of a well known commander in chief. One more ruler of Seistan is known, Sanabares, conjecturally assigned to that territory because of the Greek legends on his coins.^[38]

The Saca power in India began to dwindle away rapidly under the successors of Gondopharnes. Here the Chinese sources again bring some light. A hundred years or more after the settlement of the Yüeh-chi in Bactria and the departure of the Sacae for India a chief of the Kushans, one of the tribes of the Yüeh-chi, gained supremacy over the entire group (about a.d. 25–81?) and established a kingdom which became known by the name of his tribe. This king, Kujula Kadphises, rapidly expanded his power over Gandhara, Arachosia, and Kabul at the expense of either Gondopharnes or Pacores. Perhaps the Parthian conquests to which the Chinese sources refer^[39] are those of the Kushans in the Indo-Scythian kingdoms; possibly they may indicate attacks on Parthia proper. The second of the Kushan rulers, V'ima Kadphises, ended his reign not long before the accession of Kanishka, whose date has been so long a subject of discussion (a.d. 125?).^[40]

A remnant of the old Saca power existed in the Indus delta for some time. The author of the Periplus speaks of the "Parthians" as still in control there and describes the struggles of the various petty chiefs for supremacy.^[41]

 

1. Little new evidence has been uncovered in the past twenty years, and most of the articles go back to common sources. The bibliography in this chapter is not complete; additional titles will be found in the works cited and in the Annual Bibliography of Indian Archaeology (Leyden, 1928—).
2. J. Klaproth, Tableaux historiques de l'Asie depuis la monarchie de Cyrus jusqu'à nos jours (Paris, 1826), p. 132; S. K. Shiratori, "Ueber den Wu-sun-Stamm in Centralasien," Keleti Szemle, III (1902), 115 f.; O. Franke, Beiträge aus chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Türkvölker und Skythen Zentralasiens (APAW, 1904, No. 1), pp. 29 and 46; Hirth, "The Story of Chang K'ien," JAOS, XXXVII (1917), 133; W. E. Clark, "The Importance of Hellenism from the Point of View of Indic-Philology" (I), Classical Philology, XIV (1919), 312; Rapson in CHI, I, 565; V. A. Smith, The Early History of India (4th ed.; Oxford, 1924), p. 240; de Groot, Chinesische Urkunden zur Geschichte Asiens. II. Die Westlande Chinas, p. 17; Franke, Geschichte des chinesischen Reiches, I, 332. On the language of the Yüeh-chi see Berthold Laufer, The Language of the Yüe-chi or Indo-Scythians (Chicago, 1917).
3. Karl Charpentier, "Die ethnographische Stellung der Tocharer," ZDMG, LXXI (1917), 347–88, esp. pp. 387 f.; cf. similar conclusions reached by W. W. Tarn, "Sel.-Parth. Studies," Proc. Brit. Acad., XVI (1930), 106–11. See also Sylvain Lévi, "Le Tokharien," JA, CCXXII (1933) 1–30, and H. W. Bailey, "Ttaugara," Bull. School of Or. Studies, VIII (1935-37), 883-921.
4. Tarn, op. cit. p. 116, and in CAH, IX, 582 f. See also Franke, "The Identity of the Sok with the Sakas," JRAS, 1907, pp. 675–77; V. A. Smith, "The Śakas in Northern India," ZDMG, LXI (1907), 403–21; Heinrich Lüders, "Die Śakas und die 'nordarische' Sprache," SPAW, 1913, pp. 406–27; Sten Konow, "On the Nationality of the Kuṣaṇas," ZDMG, LXVIII (1914), 85–100; PW, art. "Sakai" (1920).
5. For the Chinese sources see pp. 42 f., n. 57. The late Dr. Laufer of Field Museum, Chicago, was kind enough to offer suggestions as to the relative merits of the translations.
6. Herzfeld, "Sakastan," AMI, IV (1932), 21–25, believes that Ferghana was the point from which the Sacae began their wanderings. His identification of Wu-sun as Ferghana is against the almost universal opinion of Sinologists, who believe Ferghana to be Ta-yüan.
7. As does Tarn in CAH, IX, 579.
8. Orosius v. 4. 16. Note that the drachms collected by G. P. Tate in Seistan (Rapson, "Note on Ancient Coins," JRAS, 1904, p. 677) begin with Mithradates II. The small number of coins, however, largely negates the value of the evidence. For a chronological table based on an acceptance of Orosius see V. A. Smith, "The Indo-Parthian Dynasties," ZDMG, LX (1906), 71 f.
9. Georg. iv. 211. Cf. PW, art. "Hydaspes," No. 2, followed by Rapson in CHI, I, 568. Rawlinson, Sixth Mon., pp. 78 f., saw the situation correctly. Cf. also Herzfeld, "Sakastan," AMI, IV (1932), 40, who suggests the Choaspes near Susa.
10. Horace Od. i. 22. 8; Seneca Medea 723 ff. and Herc. Oet. 628; Lucan De bell. civ. iii. 236 and viii. 227; Pliny Hist. nat. vi. 71; Statius Thebais viii. 237; Dionysius Periegetes 1138 f.; Claudian Paneg. dictus Probino et Olybrio 70–80, In Rufinum ii. 243, Paneg. tertio cons. Hon. 4, Paneg. quarto cons. Hon. 601, Paneg. dictus Manlio Theodoro 29, and De raptu Proserpinae ii. 82 and iii. 325. Note the frequency of the references in Claudian, who immediately preceded Orosius.
11. Strabo xi. 11. 2.
12. Tarn, "Sel.-Parth. Studies," Proc. Brit. Acad., XVI (1930), 122–26. On the "campaign coins" which mention Traxiana, see p. 59 and n. 16.
13. Tarn, "Notes on Hellenism in Bactria and India," JHS, XXII (1902), 268–93; Hugh George Rawlinson, Bactria—the History of a Forgotten Empire (London, 1912); Eduard Meyer in Encyc. Brit., art. "Bactria."
14. Ki-pin, which shifted its position at various periods, has not been identified with certainty. Christian Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde (2d ed.; Leipzig, 1867 and 1874), II, 369 and n. 5, and Herzfeld, "Sakastan," AMI, IV (1932), 31–35, on historical grounds believe it part of Arachosia. Lévi and Chavannes, "L'Itinéraire d'Ou K'Ong," JA, 9. sér., VI (1895), 371–84; Franke, Beiträge (APAW, 1904, No. 1), pp. 55 f., and Hirth, "Story of Chang K'ién," JAOS, XXXVII (1917), 133, suggest Kashmir, an identification to which the late Dr. Laufer agreed. Klaproth, Tableaux hist., p. 133, and Wieger, Textes historiques, I, 716, identify Ki-pin with Kabul; but, as Rapson in CHI, I, 563, pointed out, the Kabul valley was still in the possession of the Yavana princes and no numismatic evidence of the early Saca kings has been found there. See also H. W. Jacobson, An Early History of Sogdiana (unpublished dissertation, University of Chicago, 1935), pp. 14 f. Both Rapson, loc. cit., and F. W. Thomas, "The Date of Kaniska," JRAS, 1913, pp. 634 f., feel that the physical difficulties of the Kashmir route preclude a large tribal migration. Obviously all the Sacae could not have entered India by this route, or so large a Parthian element would not be present in their culture.
15. Rapson in CHI, I, 564. The writer does not agree with the view of F. W. Thomas, "Sakastana," JRAS, 1906, pp. 181–216, that the Sacae had long been in eastern Iran.
16. Wroth, Parthia, p. 40 and n. 1. On the assignment of these coins see pp. 40 f., n. 51. Isid. Char. Mans. Parth. 18 f. offers only a post quem date of about 1 b.c. on the acquisition of Seistan and Arachosia. Tarn in CAH, IX, 587, cites the Chinese sources as recording an independent kingdom, "Woo-yi-shan-li," which occupies the same territory as these provinces about 75 b.c. A similar statement was earlier made by Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, pp. 79 f., also without reference. Neither V. A. Smith, "The Indo-Parthian Dynasties," ZDMG, LX (1906), 55, nor the writer has been able to locate the source for this statement; cf. de Groot, Chinesische Urkunden. II. Die Westlande Chinas, pp. 91–93. Note that the Chinese sources almost invariably use such names as Parthia, Chaldaea, Bactria, and Arachosia in a provincial sense rather than in a more all-embracing meaning.
17. V. A. Smith, Early Hist. of India (4th ed.), pp. 241 f, because of his acceptance of an Indian invasion by Mithradates I, dates Maues about 95 b.c. Rapson in CHI, I, 570, places the invasion between 88 and 72 b.c. Cf. Louis de la Vallée-Poussin, L'Inde aux temps des Mauryas (Paris, 1930), pp. 262 ff. On the Indo-Scythians see Alexander Cunningham, "Later Indo-Scythians," Num. Chron., 3d ser., XIII (1893), 93–128 and 166–202; Sylvain Lévi, "Notes sur les Indo-Scythes," JA, 9. sér., VIII (1896), 444–84, and IX (1897), 5–42 (tr. into English in Indian Antiquary, XXXII [1903], 381–89 and 417–26, and XXXIII [1904], 10–16); V. A> Smith, "The Kus̲h̲ân, or Indo-Scythian, Period of Indian History," JRAS, 1903, pp. 1–64, and "Indo-Parthian Dynasties," ZDMG, LX (1906), 49–72; J. F. Fleet, "Moga, Maues, and Vonones," JRAS, 1907, pp. 1013–40; R. D. Banerji, "The Scythian Period of Indian History," Indian Antiquary, XXXVII (1908), 25–75; Sten Konow, "Indoskythische Beiträge," SPAW, 1916, pp. 787–827.
18. G. Bühler, "Taxila Plate of Patika," in Epigraphia Indica, IV (1896/97), No. 5, pp. 54–57; Rapson in CHI, I, 570. For a good general discussion see L. de la Vallée-Poussin, op. cit., pp. 272 f.
19. Edward Thomas, "Bactrian Coins and Indian Dates," Academy, Dec. 26, 1874, pp. 686 f.; Archaeological Survey of Southwest India, II (1878), 31 (not available).
20. Rapson in CHI, I, 570; cf. pp. 19 f.
21. See the articles by Konow cited on p. 64, n. 30, and McGovern, Early Empires (in press).
22. So both Rapson in CHI, I, 568, and M. I. Rostovtzeff, Caravan Cities (Oxford, 1932), pp. 157 and 214 f., and in "Dura and the Problem of Parthian Art," Yale Classical Studies, V (1935), 298 f.
23. Sir John Marshall in a letter of April 19, 1935, to the writer.
24. Note that the Seleucids and the Sasanids both utilized elephants when their possessions extended far enough east to enable them to secure the beasts. There is no record of the Parthians using them in war.
25. CHI, I, chap, xxiii. For a different interpretation see Herzfeld, "Sakastan," AMI, IV (1932), 91–98, and a briefer account in the Cambridge Shorter History of India (ed. H. H. Dodwell; Cambridge, 1934), pp. 62–85. Under Herzfeld's arrangement there would reign only two kings before Gondopharnes, i.e., Maues and Azes; but cf. pp. 64 f.
26. An interesting, though earlier, parallel to this custom is found in Elam; see Cameron, Hist. of Early Iran, pp. 20 and 71 f.
27. Rapson in CHI, I, 569.
28. Kugler, Sternkunde, II, 447, No. 31.
29. For coins of the Indo-Scythian period see Percy Gardner, The Coins of the Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria and India in the British Museum (London, 1886); E. Drouin, "Chronologie et numismatique des rois indo-scythes," Rev. num., 3. sér., VI (1888), 8–52; A. Cunningham, Coins of the Indo-Scythians (London, 1892), reprinted from Num. Chron., 1888, pp. 199–248; 1889, pp. 268–311; 1890, pp. 103–72; 1892, pp. 40–82 and 98–159; Rapson, "Indian Coins," in G. Bühler, Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, II 3, Heft B (Strassburg, 1897); V. A. Smith, Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Vol. I (Oxford, 1906); J. H. Marshall, "Excavations at Taxila," Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1912/13, pp. 1–52; Richard B. Whitehead, Catalogue of Coins in the Panjab Museum, Lahore. I. Indo-Greek Coins (Oxford, 1914).
30. J. H. Marshall, "The Date of Kanishka," JRAS, 1914, p. 986, followed by Rapson in CHI, I, 570 f., makes Azes the founder of the Vikrama era in 58 b.c. L. de la Vallée-Poussin, L'Inde aux temps des Mauryas, p. 267, places his death in that year. On the inscriptional evidence see A. F. Hoernle, "Readings from the Arian Pâli," Indian Antiquary, X (1881), 324–31; G. Bühler, "Taxila Plate of Patika," Epig. Ind., IV (1896/97), No. 5, pp. 54–57; A. M. Boyer, "L'Inscription en Kharoṣṭhī du 15 Āṣāḍha 136," JA, 11. sér., V (1915), 281–98; Sten Konow, "Taxila Inscription of the Year 136," Epig. Ind., XIV (1917/18), No. 20, pp. 284–95; Ramaprasad Chanda, "Taxila Inscription of the Year 136," JRAS, 1920, pp. 319–24; Konow, "The So-called Takht-i-Bahi Inscription of the Year 103," Epig. Ind., XVIII (1925/26), No. 28, pp. 261–82; Konow, "The Zeda Inscription of the Year 11," Epig. Ind., XIX (1927/28), No. 1, pp. 1–15; Konow in CII, II 1, pp. lxxxii–xciv and 1 ff.; Konow, "Notes on Indo-Scythian Chronology," Journ. of Indian History, XII (1933), 1–46.
31. Konow, "The so-called Takht-i-Bahi Inscription," pp. 273 f., suggested that Azes and Azilises were the same person; but he now rejects this idea in his "Notes on Indo-Scythian Chronology," p. 24. Cf. for evi- dence against the identity of the two N. G. Majumdar, "Notes on the Coin of Azes," in Ann. Rep. Archaeol. Survey of India, 1928/29, pp. 169–74 and PL. LXIV, and Marshall, "Excavations at Taxila," ibid., 1929/30, pp. 72 ff.
32. Gardner, Coins of the Greek and Scythic Kings, p. 173 and Pl. XXXII 9.
33. Rapson in CHI, I, 573. But cf. Konow in CII, II 1, pp. xl–xliii.
34. This is based on the assumption that Spalahores is the equivalent of the Greek Spalyris; so Whitehead, Cat. of Coins in the Pan. Mus., I, 143, followed by Rapson in CHI, I, 574.
35. Rapson in CHI, I, 573.
36. Rapson in CHI, I, 574–80; J. F. Fleet, "St. Thomas and Gondophernes," JRAS, 1905, pp. 223–36.
37. Rapson in CHI, I, 578; Rapson, "Note on Ancient Coins," JRAS, 1904, p. 677; A. Cunningham, "Coins of the Sakas," Num. Chron., 1890, p. 119. To this period belongs the "Phraotes" of India whom Apollonius of Tyana visited according to Philostratus Vita Apoll. ii. 26 ff. See also Werner Schur, "Die Orientpolitik des Kaisers Nero," Klio, Beiheft XV (1923), pp. 69–80.
38. Rapson in CHI, I, 580; cf. A. von Sallet, Die Nachfolger Alex. des Grossen (Berlin, 1879), pp. 52 f.
39. Chavannes, "Les pays d'Occident d'après le Heou Han chou," T'oung pao, 2. sér., VIII (1907), 190–92; Wieger, Textes historiques, I, 716 f.
40. Édouard Specht, "Les Indo-Scythes et l'époque du règne de Kanichka," JA, 9. sér., X (1897), 152–93; Sylvain Lévi, "Note additionnelle sur les Indo-Scythes," ibid., pp. 526–31, tr. into English in Indian Antiquary, XXXIII (1904), 110 ff.; A. M. Boyer, "L'Époque de Kaniṣka," JA, 9. sér., XV (1900), 526–79; H. Oldenberg, "Zwei Aufsätze zur altindischen Chronologie und Literaturgeschichte. 1. Zur Frage nach der Aera des Kaṇiṣka," NGWG, 1911, pp. 427–41, tr. into English in Pali Text Society, Journal, 1910–12, pp. 1–18; J. Kennedy, "The Secret of Kanishka," JRAS, 1912, pp. 665–88 and 981–1019; J. F. Fleet, "The Question of Kanishka," JRAS, 1913, pp. 95–107; Kennedy, "Sidelights on Kanishka," ibid., pp. 369–78; F. W. Thomas, "The Date of Kaniska," ibid., pp. 627–50; discussion by Rapson, Fleet, Kennedy, V. A. Smith, Barnett, Waddell, Dames, Hoey, and Thomas ibid., pp. 911–1042; J. H. Marshall, "The Date of Kanishka," JRAS, 1914, pp. 973–86, with comments by Thomas and Fleet ibid., pp. 987–92. See also bibliography cited by L. de la Vallée-Poussin, L'Inde aux temps des Mauryas, pp. 318–74, and articles by Konow cited on p. 64, n. 30.
41. Periplus 38; J. W. McCrindle, "Anonymi [Arriani ut fertur] Peri­plus Maris Erythraei," Indian Antiquary, VIII (1879), 107–51; J. Kennedy, "Some Notes on the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea," JRAS, 1916, pp. 829–37; W. H. Schoff, "As to the Date of the Periplus," JRAS, 1917. pp. 827–30; J. Kennedy, "Eastern Kings Contemporary with the Periplus" JRAS, 1918, pp. 106–14.