194 Y. A. Smith — History and Coinage of the Gupta Period. [No. 4, 
mana’s] coins with head to left, in B.M., presented by Miss Baring, on 
two of which the date seems to be 54, but I could not decipher the 
king’s name. It did not appear to be Toramana.” I regret that I did 
not examine these pieces more closely when I had the.opportunity. 
The two British Museum coins of Toramana are both certainly 
dated in the year 52. Dr. Hoey’s coins now published add the dates 
54 and 58. The legend on the coin dated 58 is damaged, and every 
letter of the king’s name cannot be read with certainty. But the name 
begins with Ca , and I have no doubt that the reading above given 
is correct, farvva Yarman (Yarmma) Maukharl was the son and 
successor of I^ana Yarman. The coin now published is the first which 
has been recognized as belonging to parvva Yarman. Dr. Fleet has 
published a seal of farvva Yarman in Gupta Inscr ., 
p. 220, PI. xxx. 
The era in which all three coins are dated is as yet undetermined. 
Dr. Fleet’s theory as to the 52 date is that it is a regnal year. “ It 
is plain, therefore,” he observes, “ that Toramana did exercise sov¬ 
ereign sway in the Pahjab ; at the beginning of bis career, and before 
he commenced the campaign in the course of which be eventually 
reached Malwa. If, now, we interpret tbe year on his coins as a reg¬ 
nal year, it certainly indicates a long reign. But analogous instances 
could be quoted for this ; and no special exception need be taken to it. 
“ And this interpretation of tbe date is at any rate better than the 
assumption that it is reckoned from some period, anterior to Toramana’s 
accession, at w'hich his own branch of the Hunas first rose to power; 
for that would mean that, not satisfied with the £aka era, which was 
the hereditary and national era of that part of the country, and pro¬ 
bably of his own ancestors also, he sought to establish a new era, dat¬ 
ing from that event. 
“ This, accordingly, is the interpretation that I place upon the date. 
And, reckoning back from A.D. 515, which is very closely the latest 
terminal date that can be applied, it follows that the commencement 
of his reign, at bis own capital in the Panjab, is to be placed approx¬ 
imately in A.D. 460. 
This interpretation, never satisfactory, is rendered impossible by 
the discovery of coins of other kings dated evidently in the same 
era, and must, in my opinion, for that, and for other good reasons, be 
rejected. 
A suggestion of Cunningham’s that the era used is the Qaka, with 
the hundreds omitted, is, for several reasons, equally untenable. 
1 Indian Antiquary , Yol. XYIII (1889), p. 229. 
