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 jubilar-
ian.2 Seeing him mentioned as son of Kujula Kadphises and father of Vima Kad-
phises 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 anony-
mous 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 be-
haviour of Octavian, who called himself Caesar Augustus, divi filius, Impera-
tor 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 Worces-
ter 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 Sims-
Williams 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.
2 Sims-Williams 1996, pp. 652654; 1998, pp. 8183; Sims-Williams/Cribb 19951996.
3 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.
4 Mac Dowall 2002, p. 167b.
5 Mac Dowall, ibid.
106 Harry Falk

str megas to Vima Kadphises becomes obvious through a look at the metrol-
ogy of the coinage, where Vima Kadphises adds his heavy copper issue weigh-
ing 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 success-
fully 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 va-
riety of coins was found,
probably in Kashmir, which
clearly was continuing the
bull-and-camel coppers of
Kujula, who himself had cop-
Photos: Harry Falk
ied issues of the conquered
Jihonika/Zeionises. The two Fig. 1: Two Kashmir coppers of Vema Takhtu,
types measure about 15 and reading vema takho and vema takha
17mm in diameter and weigh
3.9 and 4.9g on average. The bull side bears an inscription in strange but unam-
biguous 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 Mac Dowall 2002, p. 168b, SM5.

7 Senior 2001, p. 221, B12.2; Sims-Williams/Cribb 19951996, p. 117, variety 7b.
8 Senior 2001, p. 221, B12.1; Sims-Williams/Cribb 19951996, p. 116, variety 7a.
 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, be-
ing 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 hav-
ing 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 10.5g.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 6a , where an ordi-
nary 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 6e) or kta (type 6c). 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 exam-
ples 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.115f., under type 6
with varieties a to e.
108 Harry Falk

The reverse depicts the usual camel, but the in-

scription is not one of those given above, but com-
pletely different. It reads (fig. 2):

Photo: 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 leg-
end 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 re-
verse. This seems to be a further case.
Vema Takhtu came to power rather late because his father Kujula reigned un-
til 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, PartI, p.33, and
its treatment in Konow 1929, p. 134, is unpublished so far. The text has been ed-
ited 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 sepa-
rate 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 Falk 20022003, p.38.

11 Cf. Salomon/Schopen 2002, p.21.
12 Falk 2001, p. 134.
 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 sup-
ply a statue, pratim, after
dhivhakarasa; otherwise the
person called Takhtu (or Ta-
khti) 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 sur-
mise the pieces style looks too
young. At least this inscription
shows that the name Takhtu
Photo: Abdul Samad
(less likely Takhti) was still in
use a century or so later than Fig. 3: The dpakara of Takhtu
our Vema Takthu.

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 pre-

13 Fussman 1974, p. 18, pl. III.

14 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. Accord-
ing 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 treas-
ure 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 di-
vider. 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, be-
hind 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 Brit-
ish 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 Bopearachchi 2007 and 2008.
16 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 discus-
sions 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 writ-
ten 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, be-
low 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 pro-
pose 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 Garbini 2001, p. 196.

18 Konow 1929, p. 81.
112 Harry Falk

It seems much easier to suppose such a miswriting and end up with an in-
tended 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 (bakana-
pati) 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, mak-
ing 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 well-
known vema takho of the coinage. And since the bakanapati was appointed

19 Thaplyal 1972, p. 43.

20 Sims-Williams/Tucker 2005, p. 588.
21 Thaplyal 1972, p. 42.
22 Fussman 1998, p. 606f.
23 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 vernacu-
lars. 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, recon-
structed 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 geni-
tives 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 cop-
pers, where, as said above, the legend regularly ends in mahatasa, in some cases
shortened to maha or masa (Cribb type 6c). 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 rep-
resents 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 alterna-
tive: 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 identi-
cal 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 Kad-
phises, 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, prob-
ably as ema on the seal; the Brhm at M reads vema as well. The Bactrian in-
scriptions 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 inscrip-
tions 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 ver-
sions 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 geni-
tive 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 North-
Western vernaculars, attempts were made to thematise the foreign word, in or-
der 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 Kush-
ans. In: Gyselen, R. (ed.): Des Indo-Grecs aux Sassanides: donnes pour lhis-
toire 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 subconti-
nent and Afghanistan (4th century BC11th century AD). Local, Indian, Sasa-
nian, Graeco-Persian, Sogdian, Roman. With contributions by E. Errington,
R. Garbini, Ph. Gignoux, N. Sims-Williams, W. Zwalf. Naples (Istituto uni-
versitario 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: Numis-
matic 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. Cal-
cutta (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 An-
cient 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 cata-
logue of Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian coins. Lancaster/London.
Sims-Williams, N. 1996: Nouveaux documents sur lhistoire et la langue de la Bac-
triane. 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. Sims-
Williams (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. Indi-
sche, 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

Sims-Williams.indd Abs12 09.02.2009 13:34:00

 Exegisti monumenta
Festschrift in Honour of
Nicholas Sims-Williams

Edited by Werner Sundermann,

Almut Hintze and Franois de Blois

2009

Harrassowitz Verlag Wiesbaden

Sims-Williams.indd Abs13 09.02.2009 13:34:00

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

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen
Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische 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
Nationalbibliografie; 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

Sims-Williams.indd Abs14 09.02.2009 13:34:00