Fwd: [Parthia-L] Early Kushan Kings & Chronology: basic issues

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/25/2003 3:21:18 AM Central America Standard Tim,

appietas writes:

 

> Thanks very much John, - the subject is extremely complicated and

> exhausting

> (to me!), but by no means exhausted on that account. Further inscriptional

> evidence may give us more solid answers in the near (or distant) future.

>

> The main works behind that note/essay are John Hill's terrific translation

> and annotation of the HOU HAN SHU (posted on the Silk Roads Seattle site),

>

> Burton Watson's old translation (1950s/60s) of the SHIHJI (or SHIH CHI),

> Otto Seel's excellent 1985 Tuebner edition of thePompeius Trogus/Justinus

> text,

>

> Joe Cribb's 1999 paper on Kushana Chronology posted online by Tom Mallon -

> <A

HREF= " http://www.grifterrec.com/y/cribb/ekk_cribb_01.html " >http://www.grifterrec\

..com/y/cribb/ekk_cribb_01.html</A> (etc.)

>

> Baldev Kumar " The Early Kus.ân.as " (1973)

>

> L.P.Gupta & S.Kulashreshtha " Kus.ân.a Coins and History " (D.K.Printworld,

> 1994)

>

> Some private correspondence with Nicholas Sims-Williams, plus his second

> reading of the Rabatak Inscription - " Further Notes on the Bactrian

Inscription

> of Rabatak " , pp.79-92 in Proceedings of the Third European Conference of

> Iranian Studies (Societas Iranologica Europaea, Wiesbaden 1998),

>

> and Harry Falk's recent paper on the Kanishka Era - " The yuga of

> Sphujiddhvaja and the era of the Kus.ân.as " in S.R.A.A. no.7 (2001) pp.121-136

>

> The German R.Gobl (with those two superscript dots above the " o " ) seems to

> have published the standard catalogues of the Kushana series in recent times,

> esp.

> " Munzpragung des Kusanreiches " (Vienna, 1981) as well as important journal

> articles. Unfortunately I have no access to his basic works (as yet!). Joe

> Cribb's online paper (1999 above, paragraph 19) seems to refer to a newer,

1993,

> edition of Gobl's catalogue, which apparently is a pretty good attempt to

> include every known specimen of Kushana coinage, somewhat along the lines of

> Sellwood's excellent

> catalogues of the Arsakid series.

>

> I'm sure there would be enough interest to start a separate Kushana

> Group, but I'm not sure that that would be such a good idea - first and

> foremost because of the intricate interconnections between most Parthian,

Bactrian

> and Kushan subjects, second because (recognising this and its importance)

> Chris Hopkins

> seems quite happy to allow discussion of any and all Kushana subjects on his

> Parthia-L group. If I read Chris Hopkins rightly he is very encouraging and

> appreciative of all contributions even vaguely connected or contemporary with

> Parthian history, but can't stand modern politicing and pan-racial

> theorising intrusions. Which is a pretty reasonable (and very tolerant)

attitude.

> Certainly his

> Parthia.com URL is unusually high quality for a history site of any time and

> place.

>

> I know that there is a German site displaying Kushana coins, as well as Tom

> Mallon's " grifterrec.com " URL. Perhaps Chris Hopkins might be induced to

> include some pages of Kushana and Indo-Parthian coinage on his PARTHIA.COM

site.

>

> Thanks also for your own frequent postings of ancient historical sites and

> discussions of such important subjects as the authentic weaponry. Being snowed

> under with these researches on Parthian and Kushana subjects in recent

> months, I have not explored the resources you are making available as much as

I

> would have

> liked, but intend to do so eventually, and always get a print-out of your

> postings to Parthia-L.

>

> So Cheers & Best wishes Mark P.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

-

-

Mark Passehl

Indo-Eurasian_research

Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:37 PM

[indo-Eurasia] Invader Eras

 

 

[Mark, I deleted, as unnecessary, material that you pasted from another list.

George]

 

One of the moderators wrote:

" no one has any unresolved research issues to discuss? "

 

Yes, I do; the historical sequence and meaning of the five or six " Invader "

eras introduced into N.India in the period ca.80s BC-AD 127, in the light of

Harry Falk's resolution of the incept date of the Kushan/Kanishka era and of

Richard Salomon's full publication of the " Rukhana reliquary " which

synchronizes the era of Aya and the era of Greeks (publication details noted

below, from the Kushanas list).

 

While it may sound corny, I'm planning to (co-)author a short book on this

topic, since the experts (like Dr.Cribb) are having real problems with the

new information.

 

Dr.Falk's Kushan solution was made possible by an astrological text

(composed AD 268/9) synchronizing the Kushan era with the Saka Era

(established by Chastana's dynasty) which still endures today, while the

other era still extant under the name Vikrama (since 10th century AD; but

incept date 58-7 BC) and previously called other names, was originally

almost certainly the Aya era.

Aya's era remained popular and influential for many decades after the

decease of his Vononic Saka dynasty (ca.19 BC), but amid the competition of

eras it was generally supplanted in the N.E. (including Gandhara) and seems

to have survived by being fostered as a secondary (religious?) era under the

rule of Chastana's dynasty of " Western Kshatrapas " in the N.W. until

reemerging in its own right (publically that is) under the names Kr.ta and

later Malavagana(?).

The origin of Chastana's clan is unknown, but they were certainly Sakas and

may well have been princes from the court of the Vononic dynasty (Gandhara

and Arachotia).

If so then both continuous eras extant today sprang from the same Indianized

Saka court at Ujjain; the earlier (Aya/Vikrama) being the first and most

prestigous of the " Invader " eras, the later (Saka) either de facto

celebrating Chastana's original conquest of Ujjain and Avanti from the

Satavahana prince Gautamiputra Satakarni, or being a continuation of

Chastana's original regnal year count (year 1, AD 78-9). Chronologically the

same thing anyway.

 

Problems remain assigning all the dated extant inscriptions (in brahmi and

kharoshthi) to the right era.

 

Regards,

Mark K.P.

 

P.S. dynastic or civic dating eras also seem to have been a western

construct introduced into India, the earliest public/official one known

being Seleukid, and the earliest religious one Roman (from the dedication of

the temple of the Capitoline Triad)