166 On Ancient Sanskrit Numerals. [No. 2, 
date and arrangement in the able hands of Mr. Newton who will no 
doubt furnish a luminous paper on the subject. I have placed about 
three hundred Séh coins of my own collection at his service and 
have now only to offer a few remarks on the era in which I think the 
Sah coins are dated. 
In former papers read before the Bombay Branch of the 
Royal Asiatic Society, I have attempted to identify the Padamavi 
of the inscriptions with the Siripulomdyi of Ptolemy; and Swami 
Chastana, the grandfather of Rudradama, with Tiastenes, king of 
Ujjayini, noticed by the same geographer. I placed Rudradamaé 
at the end of the second century of the Christian era, and as 
we have got a coin of his son bearing date, apparently 104 a, a 
and some of his grandson’s bearing date 1077) the only era 
which would place Rudradéma’s son at the end of the second century is 
that of Salivahana or Sakanripakéla, which commences 78 years after 
Christ. The Nasick inscriptions in particular, show that the Satrap 
Nahaptna who preceded Padamavi, and Ushavadata, who is called a 
Saka, adopted an era, which counted in their time under 100 (either 42 
or 92). Iam therefore inclined to look upon it as the era of Kshaha- 
rata or Phrahates, one of the Arsacide, whose satraps they were. 
The Sahs are also Satraps; the type of their coins is that of the 
Arsacide and not that of the Bactrian Greek kings. The very ex- 
pressions S’akanripa or Saka-king which all the old copper-plates 
and manuscripts have, indicates a S’aka or Scythian king. The S’a- 
kanripakala is observed over a great part of India, in Burmah, Java 
and Bali; in fact in those countries to which Buddhism was carried 
from India at the commencement of the Christian era; and corre- 
sponding to the spread of the Sakas or Scythians over this peninsula. 
It is not likely, therefore, that the era prevalent over so large a por- 
tion of the globe was derived from the exploits of a humble prince 
Salivahana, whose capital was Paithan on the Godaveri, as is com- 
monly supposed. Indeed the word Salivahana does not occur in any 
ancient records or manuscripts. A Salavahana dynasty appears to 
have reigned at Paithan about the time that the Scythian Satraps 
ruled over Guzerat, a portion of the Dekhan and the Konkan; and 
the utmost that can be granted is, that the Hindus of modern times 
have preferred calling the era of the great Saka-king by the name of 
