1863. | Remarks on the Taxila Bactro-Pali Inscription. 141 
sa mahatasa Moaasa, which would appear to give the name and 
titles of the reigning king. The first word I take to be the same as 
Maharaja, as both terms are used indifferently in the Kapurdigiri 
inscription. The second word, mahata, or “great,” is well known 
from the coins as the title of all the later kings both Greek and 
Scythian. The third word therefore can only be a proper name, 
which I take to be that of the reigning king. We have a similar 
mode of expression in my Yusufzai inscription from Panjtar. In this 
record the month is the Hindu Sravana, during the reign of the king 
of the Gushan tribe (Mahdrdyasa Gushdnasa). The name of the 
king most probably followed the title, but has been lost by the break- 
ing of the stone. I think it probable that the great MOGA of this 
inscription is the same as the great MOA, or MAUA, of the coins. 
If the real name was MAWA, it might have been written indifferent- 
ly either as Joa, or Moga, as we find in the parallel case of the name 
of Gondophara, which is written both Undopherras and Gondophares 
on the coins. 
Now the coins of Moas prove, by their superior execution, that he 
must have been one of the principal leaders of the Indo-Scythian 
tribes who overthrew the Greek power in India. Indeed the priority 
of Moas to all other Indo-Scythian Princes, whose coins we possess, 
is so clear, that it has been admitted at once by all who have examin- 
ed the subject; but the precise date of his accession to power is still 
doubtful, although the period may be fixed with some certainty with- 
in the narrow limit of about thirty years. For this event the year 
100 B. C. has been assigned by H. H. Wilson, and 120 B. C. by 
Professor Lassen, while my own chronological table, which was 
framed some twenty years ago, places it in 130 B.C. The mean of 
these three periods is 116 B.C. which is very close to the date of 
126 B. C. assigned by the Chinese for the conquest of Kipin, or Ko- 
phene, by the great horde of the Su, or Sakas. Now if we suppose 
that Moas, or Moga, was the leader ofa branch of the Sw which set- 
tled in the Panjab, we may fix his date at a few years later than 126 
B. C. or in about 116 B. C. as just suggested. According to this 
supposition the era in which the Taxila inscription is dated will be 
somewhere about 60 years earlier than 116 B. C. or B. C. 176; and 
the date of the inscription will be 176—78=98 B.C. Now as the 
occupation of Transoxiana by the Sw is stated by the Chinese to have 
in 4 
