DDK HistoryF.p65 - CSIR

NOTES TO CHAPTER VIII 293
between S. L. Katare and Mirashi, JNSL 16, 1954, 77-85, and the not« by P. L.
Gupta, ibid. 86-9. Satavahana silver coins are rare, which means that they mostly
used other people’s currency, occasionally counterstruck as with Nahapana and
Gotamiputra; northern punch-marked coins also circulated in the south at this time, so
that new coinage by the Satakanis in a silver-poor region was not necessary. The
absence of such coinage would indicate the prevalence of barter-exchange for the
common people.
4. J. Przyluski : JRAS, 1929, pp. 273-279; terminations — karna such as in
Tunakarna, Masurakarna and perhaps Jatukanna lead to the suspicion of other Such
clan-names (JAOS. 75, p. 41, footnote 9).
5. J. H. Speke : A journal of the discovery of the sources of the Nile, chap. 1 ;
originally published London 1863, but the Everyman’s Library ed. (no. 50) gives the
details on pp. 25-7, with map. Lieut. Francis Wilford’s article was published in the
Asiatick Researches 3, 1801 ; it is remarkable that anyone should have approached
the confused puranas with such assurance, to make an ingenious conjecture, so
triumphantly verified. The contradiction came four years later in the same journal,
blaming the pandit for whose work no credit had been given in Wilford’s
earlier work.
6. For the asvamedha sacrifices of Pus.yamitra, ITM. 175 ff. Tho
Malavikagnimitra reference is made more likely by a Harivamsa (3.2.40) stanza to
the effect that a Kasyapa senani (commander-in-chief) would perform the horsesacrifice.
The gotra is wrong, but the title senani was continued at least by the early
Suhgas on their coins, one having been found at Kosam. Pusyamitra was not the only
one to perform such a sacrifice, but the impression was apparently heightened by his
having been the first to do so after the Asokan ban.
7. The most reasonable interpretation of the Vikrama era may b« that extracted
from the story of the Jain dcarya Kalaka. The 2000fh anniversary of Vikrama was
celebrated with due pomp in 1943, though neither press-agents nor the luminaries
publicized were able to shed any light on the problem. The memorial volumes issued
on that occasion proves only the futility of such “research” : in English, Vikrama
volume (Ujjain, Scindia Or. Inst., 1948) in Hindi, Vikrama nibandha sarftgraha (Kanpur,
1944?). None of the mutually contradictory essays in such volumes proves anything
beyond the will to believe.
8. For the Manusmrti, I use in general the standard Nirnaysagar Press text with
commentary of Kulluka; also the edition (Calcutta 1932) by Ganganath Jha with
commentary of Medhatithi; the translation is by G. Biihler, SEE. 25. Whatever the
locality of origins, the work is well suited to the village economy and the village
priest’s mentality, which account for its growing authority.
9. See my note on The avatar a syncretism and possible sources of the
Bhagavadgita (JBBRAS. 24-25, 1948-9, 121-134).
10. For the Heliodoros inscription : V. S. Suktfiankar, ABORI 1.59-66; collected
works (Memorial edition), vol. 2 pp. 266-272 proved the word-order and terminology