You are on page 1of 10

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era

A note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


Robert Bracey
Harry Falk (2001) has recently published a new interpretation of the formula of
Sphujiddhvaja for calculating the date of a previously unknown Kushan era from the Saka
era. A well-known theory, proposed by Lohuizen (1949), that the Kanishka era had
continued in a second century, with the hundreds omitted, gave the opportunity to link this
new Kushan era with the problem of the date of Kanishka. If Sphujiddhuaja was referring to
the start of the second century of Kanishkas era then this would fix the date of Kanishka to
127 AD.
Though the theory won general support strong objections were raised in
correspondence at the timei, and in more detail once the article was published (Bracey,
2004). The objections to the dating of 127 AD for the Kanishka era were two-fold. Firstly,
that the new evidence failed to invalidate the very extensive previous evidence deployed for
a variety of other dates, principally 115 AD and 144 AD (Cribb, 1999; Puri, 1994). This
evidence is quite extensive and had not been considered, prior to 2001, to favour a date of
127 AD. It therefore remains necessary to explain the discrepancy between the new theory
and the old evidence. The second objection stems from the new source itself.
That the Kushan inscriptions represented two sequences of dates is widely accepted,
one from the years 2 to 98 of the Kings Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vasudeva; and a second
sequence known to include inscriptions dated from the years 20 to 41 and to incorporate the
reigns of Kanishka II, Vasishka, and Kanishka IIIii. It is not clear how these two sequences
related to each other. Lohuizen (1949 & 1983) argued that the second sequence was a
second century of the era of Kanishka, with the character for 100 omitted. This was
plausible, as abbreviation is a common feature of Kushan period inscriptions. But, an
alternative opinion (Rosenfield, 1968; Cribb, 1994) was that the second sequence might be
a new era. This made sense as the second sequence appeared to commence with the
ascension of Kanishka II, and while the foundation of eras was common in the period the
abbreviation of dates was unattested.
The calculation employed by Sphujiddvaja (Kushan = Saka + 149), means that his
Kushan era starts counting in AD 227. This is hard to equate with the abbreviation of the
dropped hundreds, which is commonly compared to the modern practice of writing 05 or
98. A modern writer never becomes confused over whether 05 means 2005 or 1905,
but this is exactly what seems to have happened to Sphujiddvaja. If the inscriptions had
been abbreviated then a contemporary author would have understood that the era began in
AD 127 and would havewritten the formula accordingly. It would not have been appropriate
to be a hundred years out as it would produce nonsense applied to an event in the reign of
Vasudeva, or the later Kushan king Shaka. So far from being a neat fit with Lohuizens
dropped hundreds theory Sphujiddvaja actually implied that she was wrong and that a new
era had commenced with the second sequence of inscriptions in 227 AD. A valuable
contribution but not a successful solution to the date of Kanishka.
In response Falk (2004) has revised his theory with arguments, and new evidence,
intended to counter these criticisms. Firstly, he has abandoned the idea of an abbreviation

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


2
and replaced it with a cyclical era, as well as supporting evidence that cyclical eras existed
in contemporary India. Secondly, he has supplied evidence of the continuation of the era,
with the hundreds missing, at a still later date. Several aspects of his paper require
comment.
1. The Saeculum
Falk has made explicit the position that has been implicit in his recent
argumentation. He argues that far from being an abbreviation (the dropped hundreds) the
era was cyclical by its very nature. This is necessary to explain the discrepancy between
Sphujiddvaja and Falks theoryiii, but also to explain why amongst hundreds of private
donations we do not find a single example of an unabbreviated dateiv. If the idea of a
cyclical era was firmly embedded with the people of Northwest India, then this would
explain why not one of the hundreds of private donors ever had a date inscribed with an
unabbreviated date.
The central case (Falk, 2004: 168-9) is that the concept of a saeculum existed in
contemporary ancient India. Falk believes, for reasons that are not clear, that the term would
appear as
in Sanskrit, and is able to find three examples of equivalent Prakrit
seems most probable (169), and in fact that is exactly the conclusion drawn by Mirashi
(1967) who believed that the special meaning in addition to the pure registration of the
date (Falk, 2004: 169) was a benediction that the kings life (or rule) should endure for one
hundred years. However, Falk is not making this argument, he equates the term with
saeculum and so implies that it represents a cyclical era of 100 years. It is therefore implicit
the Kushans this strengthens the case for a Kushan saeculum.
Table 1 gives an outline of dates available for various Kings from the Eastern Indian site of
Nagarjunikonda. This includes two of the inscriptions mentioned by Falk as being dated in a
saeculum. Even the most cursory glance at the table shows that these are regnal years and
not some sort of cyclical era. If the dates which carry the term vasasatya were as Falk
xtend over a period of
several centuries, and individual reigns would have had to endure for more than fifty years.
Any workable chronology of these rulers (who are directly related to each other) would
become quite impossible.
The same problems apply to the Stvahana mention of vasasatya. So whatever
this word means in the three inscriptions Falk has highlighted it obviously does not mean
saeculum. It seems more likely, that it is a general epithet, as Mirashi assumed, which has
no special relevance to the reckoning.

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


3
Ruler
Chantamulasa
Virupurisadatta

Year

Inscription No.

6
15

18

911, 912, 914-919


891
Vogels M3 and containing the
phrase vasasatya
892
Exactly the same context as 891
but no mention of vasasatya
920

2
8
11
13
16
20

886 and 887


681 and 682
923
683
706
679

24

684

15

Ehuvala Chantamulasa

Notes

Containing the phrase vasasatya


and first believed by Sircar to be
date in the 60 year Jupiter cycle.

Others
Ehavalsri
Mathariputra

11
14

724
921

Vasusena, the Abhira

2 or 30 708

Reign of Ehuvala Chantamulasa?


Successor
to
Ehuvala
Chantamulasa?

2. The saeculum elsewhere in contemporary documents


There is, however, an example of a saeculum type dating in a well-known Indian
source. The various puranas which provide lists of the dynasties of the Kali age also provide
a brief account of astronomical calculations (Partiger, 1913: 75). This is translated by
Partiger as follows:
In the circle of the lunar constellations, wherein the Great Bear revolves, and which
contains 27 constellations in its circumference, the Great Bear remains 100 years in (i.e.
conjoined with) each in turn.
Often known as the era of the Seven Sages, the term they employ is not
, but
(and also
). Though the term is not that which
Falk expects the reckoning described is exactly the sort of dating system that is needed, as it
clearly involves a cyclic period of one hundred years.
Dating the puranic texts is immensely difficult because they are heavily stratified.
Not only were sections written at different times but they have been subject to subsequent
editing. The text undoubtedly contains layers which are drawn from the Kushan/Gupta

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


4
period. In particular the Puranic texts dealing with the Kali age dynasties provide detailed
lists of Kings up to the early Guptas, though they relegate the Greeks, Indo-Parthians,
Kushans, and others in the north-west to simple notes on the length of their dynasties. If the
astronomical information belonged to the same layer as the historical data it would seem to
have been current in the fourth or fifth century and in eastern and central India.
So, in conclusion, it can be said that while Falks argument for
being
an Indian equivalent of the Roman saeculum is clearly flawed, there may exist a
contemporary Indian equivalent.
3. The Dual-Dated Gupta Records
In the second part of his argument, demonstrating the continuation of the era, Falk
(2004) draws attention to three inscriptions which are all dated in two different reckonings.
In two of the cases both the dates survive, and in one there is a lacunae in which he
presumes a date occurs. Falk argues that two epithets, vijayarjya and klnuvarttamna,
identify two distinct reckoningsv. If this is the case then a higher date (insc. 515) proceeds a
lower date (insc. 933 & 634), a sure sign of a cyclical era.
It is impossible to decide if klnuvarttamna represents a specific era, as it occurs
only in these inscriptions, so there is no basis for comparison. Instead the assertion that
vijayarjya means the Gupta era can be checked. If the term is specific to the Gupta era then
the argument holds, but if the epithet can be used with any era then the three inscriptions
can be reconstructed without a higher date proceeding a lower (which was in fact how they
were interpreted before the present claims).
The term is also employed in the inscriptions of Kumaragupta (insc. 525 & 530) and
Skandagupta (insc. 538)vi. These are clearly in the Gupta era. A plate of Indravarman dated
in the year 87 of the Ganga era (insc. 845) also uses the term. This makes it clear that the
epithet does not refer specifically to the Gupta era. And the Omgodu Grant of Sihavarman II
in the year 4 (insc. 939) and a grant of Kumara Vishnu dated in the year 13 (insc. 584) use
the term as well. Both are clearly in the reign of kings, and this demonstrates clearly that
vijayarjya has no special meaning and could be applied as an epithet to any reckoning. It
could therefore be applied to either of the reckonings in the dual-dated records.
The claim that two terms (vijayarjya and vasasatya) have special meanings for the
reckoning they accompany has now been demonstrated to be without foundation. It would
therefore be unreasonable to claim that klnuvarttamna must refer to a specific era, which
means that the low dates found in the dual-dated inscriptions could refer to a reign and the
high dated inscriptions to the Gupta era; the reversal of epithets, which is the centre of the
argument for these being a cyclical era, being irrelevantvii.
Falks argumentation is unsound, but it also ignores a much more compelling line of
reasoning first identified by Iyer (1973:21). The low numbered reckoning begins in 426
AD, or 107 of the Gupta era What reckoning could begin in this year? The last inscription
of Chandragupta is year 93 (insc. 518) and the first of Kumaragupta is year 98 (insc. 525) so
107 cannot be the start of the reign of Kumaragupta. Iyer recognised this and proposed that
the reckoning was the reign of a local king Nripamitra (insc. 704). While Nripamitra is a

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


5
local potentate and his reign begins close to this date it is a somewhat awkward solution as
neither of the dual dated inscriptions mentions Nripamitraviii.
So while Falks argument for a cyclical era being proven directly from the dual
dated inscriptions must be rejected (as vijayarjya does not as he claims refer to the Gupta
era), these inscriptions do clearly provide evidence of a reckoning that begins in 426 AD.
Before considering what era could be reckoned from that point it is necessary to re-examine
something which has received only slight attention from Kushan scholars.
4. The Laukika Era
The one example of a cyclical era in Indian history is the medieval Laukika
(Salamon, 1998: 196). By way of introduction it is worth quoting what the Arab author Al
Biruni says about this era:
Common people in India date by the years of a centennium, which they call samvatsara. If
a centennium is finished, they drop it, and simply begin to date by a new one. This era is
called lokakla, i.e. the era of the nation at large. But of this era people give such totally
different accounts that I have no means of making out the truth. In a similar manner they
also differ among themselves regarding the beginning of the year (OBrien, 1997: 20)
No serious link between Al-Birunis Laukika era and the reckoning of Kanishka has
previously been drawn, other than as an example to show the plausibility of a dropped
hundreds. The reasons are obvious. The eras are separated by nearly a millennia; the
cyclical Laukika era, in which year 1 coincides with 24 or 25 of our own centuries (X24/5)
was not close to any of the proposed dates for Kanishka (78, 115, 128, 144 AD); and the
dropped hundreds was used only to explain a short continuation into a second century, not
a lengthy continuation over a long period. However, opinions on both the Laukika and
Kanishka eras have changed.
The first change, is that Harry Falks new argumentation is now considering a
cyclical era as a serious proposition for the Kushan era. The Puranic evidence mentioned
above as providing a contemporary example of a cyclical era is connected in later tradition
to the Laukika era (OBrien, 60-3), though it is clear (because the astronomy involved is
nonsense) that the Puranas are providing a post-hoc explanation of an already existing era
(Sastri & Sarma, 1959). And the date Falk has proposed, 127 AD, is close to X24/5ix.
The second change is that the Kushan era has moved closer to the Laukika, as there
clearly is an era beginning in 227 AD, and if the dual-dated Gupta inscriptions are to be
linked with the Kanishka era (which is obviously open to considerable doubt) they provide
evidence for the continuation of the reckoning up to 426 AD. On this presumption then the
Kanishka era comes two hundred years closer to the Laukika.
The third change is that the Laukika era has moved closer to the Kushan era. The
Bactrian documents of central Asia (Simms-Williams, 1997) provide dates in the Laukika
era from the eighth century, and inscriptions from Kashmir and Sind also provide examples
of the era considerable predating the chroniclers Al-Biruni and Kalhana. A coin minted in
the seventh century (year 88 = 712 AD) may even provide the earliest example (OBrien,

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


6
1997). So the gap between the latest Kushan date and the earliest Laukika has fallen from
ten centuries to just three.
The fourth change is the possibility that a cyclical era can lose time. The Laukika era
has been demonstrated to lose a year in the twelfth century (OBrien, 1997), when it
conforms to the local reckoning in the Sindh region, and the start of the year is shifted
several months backwards, this changes it from being equivalent to AD X25/6 to being
equivalent to AD X24/5. A cyclical era is vulnerable to this sort of loss in time, either due to
gradual erosion caused by changes in the calendar, or a switch from current to elapsed
reckoning, or difficulties of equating specific era dates and AD dates, or simply as the result
of the sort of confusion that Al-Biruni complains about.
These four changes affect the relevance of the Laukika era for the Kushan. To
illustrate the point Table 2 shows various known reckonings, from the second to the twelfth
centuries. Those after the seventh century are known to be cyclical, where those before are
only suspected. If it is assumed for the sake of argument that the dates shown represent a
single era, then the table shows a gradual loss of time. Like a watch which is running just a
little bit slow the era loses time (about 3 months each century). The reckoning begins by
ticking the centennium out at X26/7, then X25/6 and finishes in X24/5.

Table 2: Examples of reckonings from the second to the twelfth centuries


Kanishkas Date
110-134
Kushan Era
227
Dual Dated Gupta Inscriptions
426
Conquest of Sind Coin
625
Laukika Era in Bactrian Documents
X26
Laukika
Era
in
Kashmiri
X25/6
Inscriptions
Al-Biruni & Kalhanas Laukika Era
X25/6
Jaisalmeri Laukika
X24/5
Sindh Era
624/5 -626/7
Later tradition of the Seven Sages
X24/5
The possibility must be entertained that the Kushan era mentioned by Sphujjidvaja is
the Laukika era. Or if that option is rejected, it must be seriously considered that the dualdated Gupta inscriptions relate to the Laukika era (with which they coincide precisely) and
not to the Kushan era.x A reckoning which appears to commence in 426 AD and which
might be cyclical shows an obvious affinity to the X26 Laukika era of the Bactrian
documents. But it also shows some affinity to the Kushan era of 227 AD. So it is unclear if
the dual-dated inscription is the latest example of a Kushan date, the earliest example of a
Laukika, or both.
5. The starting point of the X27 era

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


7
Given then that there is a local reckoning at Mathura, which begins in 426 AD,
testified by the inscriptions above, and a local reckoning that begins in 227 AD, testified by
Sphjiddhvaja, and if it is assumed (for arguments sake) that they are part of a cyclical era,
when does it begin?
What is needed is some clear evidence that the start of the reign of some king
coincided with year 1, (with the inauguration of Kanishka I in 127 AD, or with Kanishka
IIs inauguration in 227 AD). If neither king initiated the X27 reckoning then it is extremely
unlikely that it would coincide with their inaugurations (p ~ 0.094). Should either, or both,
kings inauguration coincide with year 1 of a cyclical reckoning it would be almost certain
they founded it. If Kanishka II came to the throne in 227 AD and his reign coincided
precisely with year 1 of the Kushan era, the conclusion would be forced that Kanishka II
was the founder of the era, distinct from the era founded by Kanishka.
The evidence for Kanishka I is compelling. The earliest inscriptions which can be
firmly linked to his reign are dated in the year 2 (insc. 181). There are no inscriptions in
older eras mentioning king Kanishka and in the Rabatak inscription (insc. 567) he is
credited with having inaugurated year 1. While the evidence for his having begun an era is
therefore compelling it is unclear if that reckoning coincides with 127 AD (the balance of
the evidence favouring a date from 110 to 130 AD).
The evidence for Kanishka II is also suggestive. It is clear from coin finds in Central
Asia that because Kanishka IIs are the last coins to be found in the region that he was the
ruler of the Kushan empire who lost Bactria to the Sasanian empire (Zeymal, 1997). That
event probably occurred in 233 AD, the foundation of the Kushano-Sassanian era (SimsWilliams, 1997). This puts the start of his reign, suspiciously, close to 227 AD. Some
authors have suggested that Vasudeva was still ruling in the first four years of the new
century, and that Kanishka II did not come to the throne until year 5 xi. This is based
principally on an assumption that the king Po-tiao, who sent an envoy to China in AD 230,
is Vasudeva (Zurcher, 1968: 371). Though there are no inscriptions of the years 1 to 4,
which name Vasudeva as Kushan kingxii.
So, if the idea of an X27 era is accepted, it remains an open question whether that
era should be linked to Kanishka, or his successor Kanishka II, or perhaps to somebody else
entirely.
6. Conclusion
Harry Falk deserves considerable credit for advancing Kushan studies towards a
solution of the date of Kanishka. In 2000 those strongly interested could pin Kanishkas
date to a period of about thirty years in the first half of the second century, but the trail that
had brought that progress since 1960 had gone cold. New lines of evidence, such as the
Rabatak inscription or Kushano-Sassanian era had proved somewhat disappointing in this
regard. However Falk has twice been able to draw attention to previously neglected
evidence (2001 & 2004) and this has given a fresh impetus to solutions, as well as forcing
some much needed re-examination of assumptions.
It has been shown Falks evidence of a cyclical era in vasasatya is unsound, his
attempt to equate vijayarjya with the Gupta era is weak, and that therefore the arguments

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


8
he has recently brought forward cannot be considered compelling. Though it has also been
shown that there are alternative lines of evidence both for a cyclical era and which can be
used to extend the evidence for a cyclical era, and the problem of how to determine its
initial year has been considered. However, a cyclical era still rests on linking a series of
different reckoning (Kanishkas reckoning beginning 110-130 AD, Sphujiddvajas Kushan
era, the reckoning of 426 AD, and the X25/6 Laukika era). Compelling as they appear these
links remain unproven, and this is the central point of disagreement with Falk. Falk has
provided some challenging new evidence, but it is not a solution to the problem. At the
moment it is only a programme for research.
Inscriptions
All inscriptions are referred to by an index number. References can be found by consulting
the list of Kushan related inscriptions at http://www.kushan.org/inscriptions/index.htm.
References

Bhandarkar, D R
1981 Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings, CII Vol.3, ASI
Bivar, A D H
1979 The Azes Era and the Indravarman Casket South Asian Archaeology 1979: 369-376
Bracey, R
1994 The Date of Kanishka A Rough Guide to Kushan History,
http://www.kushan.org/essays/chronology/falk.htm
1995 Review: Kusana Coins and History A Rough Guide to Kushan History,
http://www.kushan.org/reviews/kch.htm
Cribb, J
1997 Numismatic Perspectives on Chronology in the Crossroads of Asia Gandharan Art in
Context (ed. Allchin R. et.al.), Ancient India & Iran Trust: 215-30
1999 The early Kushan kings: new evidence for Chronology. Evidence from the Rabatak
Inscription of Kanishka I Coins Art and Chronology (ed. Alram M & Klimburg-Salter D E): 177206
Falk, H
2001 The Yuga of Sphujiddhuaja and the era of the Kusanas Silk Road Art and Archaeology 7:
121 136
2004 The Kanishka Era in Gupta Records Silk Road Art and Archaeology 10: 167-176
Gupta, P L & Kulashreshtha, S
1994
, D K Printworld, Delhi
Harmatta, J.
2001 Religions in the Kushan Empire in History of Civilizations of Central Asia (ed. Harmatta
J.), Vol. II, UNESCO
Iyer, S S
1973 Two Brahmi Inscriptions from Mathura Epigraphia Indica 40 (1973-74): 19-22

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


9
Lohuizen-de-Leeuw, J E van
1949 The Scythian Period: An Approach to the History, Art, Epigraphy and Palaeography of
North India from the 1st Century BC to the 3rd Century AD
1986 The Second Century of the Kanishka Era South Asian Studies 2: 1-9
Mirashi, V V
1967 Epigraphical Note Epigraphia Indica 37 (1967-8): 70-3
OBrien, A G
1996
Oxford
University Press, Delhi
Puri, B N
1994 The Kushans History of Civilizations of Central Asia (ed. Harmatta J.), Vol. II, UNESCO:
247-264
Rosenfield, J M
1967 Dynastic Art of the Kushans, University of California Press
1968 The Mathura School of Sculpture, two contributions to the study of Kushan chronology
Papers on the Date of Kanishka (ed. Basham A L): 247-258
Salamon, R
1998 Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and other IndoAryan Languages, Oxford University Press
Sastri, T S K & Sarma K V
1959 The Untenability of the Postulated Saka of 550 BC Journal of Indian History 39.2: 201224
Shrava, S.
1993 Dated Kushana Inscriptions, Pranava Prakashan.
Simms-Williams, N
1997 New Light on Ancient Afghanistan: The Decipherment of Bactrian, SOAS
Zeymal, E V
1997 'Coins from the excavations of Takhti-i-Sangin' Studies in Silk Road Coins and Culture:
Special Issue of Silk Road Art and Archaeology

Endnotes

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southasia-coins/ Message 1550, 13 April 2001


Dissenting opinions include those of Shrava (1993) and Harmatta (1996). These opinions depend
upon theories of dual kingship and are unable to explain in an adequate manner the later coinage of
the Kushan empire.
iii
Of course if it were accepted that the two sequences of Kushan inscriptions were separate eras the
problems disappear. Though this is not by any means a complete solution.
iv
The one example, an inscription of year 170 in the reign of Vasudeva (insc. 326) has been
misread.
v
Many epithets in dating formulas are not specific and could be applied to any era. However there
are several examples of epithets which are era specific. Several Kharoshti inscriptions use the name
of the Indo-Parthian Azes to identify an era commence in the mid first century BC (Bivar, 1979),
and the Vikrama era inscriptions from Central India are identified first by the term krita and later
by the term malwa (Bhandarkar, 1981: 187-201). A recently discovered inscription (insc. 23) with
ii

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era


10
dates in three reckonings also uses not only the name of Azes, but also the term yona to denote the
Greek era (insc. 23).
vi
These are not from the Mathura area, being respectively from Bilsad, Karamdamda, and Indor, and
do not include a second date in a different reckoning.
vii
It is unfortunate that no example has been found with two high dates. Though it would be
dangerous to draw any conclusions from this, as reconstructions of Kushan chronology inevitably
involve curious coincidences.
viii
Inscription 936 may be relevant. This belongs to roughly the same period and has a date in the
year 13. Likewise inscription 598 which may read
could be relevant to the problem at
hand.
ix
And it is closer still to the Laukika era of X26. In the Bactrian documents alongside the KushanoSasanian and Arab reckonings there is an example of the Laukika era in which year 32 = 857 AD,
which means that year 1 = X26 (Simms-Williams, 1997: 9)
x
One of the similarities between the Laukika and Kanishkas reckoning is their popular nature.
Though inscriptions are often referred to as Kushan only 10% can be categorised as royal or
official. The vast majority of donors that use the era are private individuals who have no connection
with the Kushan rulers. This is very similar to the Laukika era which Al-Biruni describes as the
popular era of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir and Sind (almost exactly the extent of the Kushan
empire). By contrast other eras are far more commonly associated with royal/official inscriptions;
22% of Azes & Greek era inscriptions, 72% of Gupta era inscriptions, and 87% of inscriptions dated
in the reign of a king (based on a sample of 927 inscriptions, May 2005).
xi
Attempts to separate the inscriptions of Kanishka I and Kanishka II between the years 2 and 19
have been an almost unmitigated disaster. Lohuizen (1949) and Rosenfield (1967 & 1968) have
attempted to do so on stylistic grounds, but both failed to correctly place the inscriptions of Vasishka
and Kanishka III, there methods indicating they belonged to the first sequence. While attempts to
use titles (Gupta & Kulashreshta, 1994) can be shown to be badly flawed and involve considerable
special pleading (Bracey, 2005). There are in fact only a handful of inscriptions which can be placed
in the second sequence with any confidence (insc. 210, 469, 227, 226, 231, 232, 456) and these
provide little evidence on the reign of Kanishka II other than it ending in year 19.
xii
Joe Cribb has recently presented a series of die studies, which have a direct bearing on this,
though the details are as yet unpublished. See http://www.kushan.org/news/news3.htm.

You might also like