1865.] Ancient Indian Weights. 63 
“ Primus inter pares ;’’* but necessarily with much larger powers and 
functions in dealing with kingdoms than the ordinary title would 
carry with it in the mere management of village communities. 
I now have to refer to the coins themselves, but as introductory to 
further details, it is necessary to indicate the leading locality of their 
discovery, and the epoch to which they should, on independent grounds, 
be attributed. I have so lately, and so entirely without reference to 
any present theory, reviewed the chief sites of the discovery of this 
class of money, under comparatively careful systems of geographical 
record, that I had better confine myself to a recapitulation of those 
results, pure and simple. The conclusion I arrived at was, that the 
kingdom for the supply of whose currency these coins were designed, 
had “its boundaries extending down the Doab of the Ganges and 
-Jumna below Hastinapura, and westwards beyond the latter river to 
some extent along the foot of the Himalayas into the Punjab’’+—the 
division of the entire country probably the most advanced, at that 
* General Cunningham, many years ago, guessed, in virtue of a portion of 
the name, that Kunanda was one of the nine Nandas, but as he has not ventured 
to support his conjecture, I conclude that he has abandoned the identification, 
( Bhilsa Topes,” p. 355.) Max Miiller rightly divined that Xandrames might 
be “the same as the last Nanda” (“ Sanskrit Literature,’ p. 279); though, 
Wilford, in 1807, had already enunciated, to all intents and purposes, a similar 
theory. (“ As. Res.,” ix. p. 94.) Notwithstanding that he had previously so far 
compromised himself, as to advocate the interpretation of the Greek Xandrames 
as a synonym of the Sanskrit Chandra Gupta (As. Res. V. 286). 
[Referring to priorities of publication, I see that General Cunningham has 
another grievance against me (J. A. 8. B. 1864, p. 229). It seems that in ex- 
amining General Abbott's coins, in November, 1859, I noted a square piece of 
Epander, as that of a “ new king.” The Memoir in which this statement ultimately 
appeared, had avowedly been laid aside, and after two years’ delay was inserted 
in the Journal of the R. A. 8. (yol xx. p. 99, July, 1862). In the mean time, as I 
now learn, General Cunningham had announced to the world that he was the 
owner of a bad coin of the same king (J. A. S. B. 1860, p. 396). But if I of- 
fended the General’s susceptibility in this very open date of discovery, I must 
have afflicted his sensitive and exclusive ideas of patent rights still more acutely, 
when I again published Col. Abbott's coin as “ wnique” in the Numismatic Chro- 
nicle of September, 1864 (p. 207, vol. iii. N. S.) 
Though, in truth, I was, in either case, altogether innocent of intent, and to 
bring this home to the General’s own peculiar feelings, I may state that had I 
seen the notice he refers me to, I should not have given him credit, in the same 
article, fora discovery he confesses to be due to Mr. Forrest. And, on the 
other hand, I should have been most anxious to have been able to cite the con- 
junction of the names of Antiochus Nikator and Agathocles on the same piece, 
which so specially bore upon the subject matter of my paper. } 
t Prinsep’s “Essays,” i. 204. General Cunningham says, “found chiefly 
‘between the Indus and Jumna,.’ Mr. Bayley’s experience coincides with 
my own in placing their centre more tothe eastward. These coins were first 
brought to notice in 1834, on the occasion of Sir P. Cautley’s discovery and 
excavation of the ancient city of Behat, on the Jumna, 17 feet below the pre- 
sent general level of the surrounding country. See J, A. S. B, iii, 43, 221, Prin- 
sep’s “ Essays,” i. p. 76. 
