[No. 1, 
,52 V. A. Smith —On the Civilization of Ancient India. 
It is interesting to observe that etymologically the word Spa\M 
( a from Spaccro/uxi, and so, strictly, as much as one can hold in the hand , 
L. and S.) is the equivalent in meaning of the Indian pana, xpn, (akin to 
pdni, qifw., ‘ hand ’), which originally meant ‘a handful of cowries.’ 
( Cunningham , Avchceol. Reports. Vol. A, p. 78). 
I may also be permitted to call attention to the fact that the limit¬ 
ing anterior date determined as above for the transfer of the Latin 
word denarius to India is the date which I have independently fixed 
as that from which strong Graeco-Roman influence on Indian art can be 
traced. 
Leaving for the present Professor Weber, I shall now turn to the 
essay of Mr. Senart, which is principally concerned with the stone re¬ 
mains of the Kabul River valley, or Gandhara, the chief subject of my 
former disquisition. 
Mr. Senart’s paper is divided into two parts, the first of which deals 
with inscriptions in the Arian (Gandharian, Kharoshtri) character, and 
the second with sculptures recently obtained by Captain Deane from 
excavations at a place called Sikri, near the well-known site of Jamal- 
garhi. 
The observations of the distinguished French scholar mark a great 
advance in the interpretation of the Arian inscriptions, though much still 
remains obscure. He gives facsimiles in photo-type from paper casts of 
three inscriptions, all in the Lahore Museum, viz., (1) that from Takht- 
i-Bahi, (2) a short one from a locality not known, and (3) the Zeda 
record, and offers readings and interpretations, more or less complete, 
of all three, besides remarks on several other connected documents. 
It is satisfactory to learn that there is no doubt that the Takht-i- 
Bahi inscription is really dated in the year 26 of king Guduphara 
(Gondophares), and in the year 103 of an era the initial point of which 
is still undetermined. 
dinctra had the same subdivisions, and, in any case, whatever may have been the 
usage elsewhere, the writer of the inscription at Gadhwa must surely have considered 
the suvarna and dinar a to be different, or he would not have distinguished them. 
Narada (ibid, page 231) writes to the same effect as Brihaspati. 
Narada probably wrote in the fifth or sixth century A. D., (ibid page XVIII'); 
and Brihaspati in the sixth or seventh century A. D. While these pages have been 
passing through the press, a valuable little work by Sir A. Cunningham, entitled 
‘ Coins of Ancient India’ (Quaritch, 1891), has appeared. The earliest Indian coins 
and metric systems are there discussed. I have above, as in my previous publica¬ 
tions, reckoned the weight of the rati to be T825 grain, and that of the pana, karsha, 
and Suvarna as 146 grains. Sir A. Cunningham now uses 1*8 and 144 respectively, as 
the elements of his calculations. He used to follow Thomas in his erroneous 
estimate of the weight of the rati as 1*75 grain. The figures 18 and 144 aro very 
convenient. 
