56 
Y. A. Smith —On the Civilization of Ancient India. [No. 1, 
certainement entendre notre date ; ‘ 1 ’ an 78, sous le regne du grand roi 
Mogas.’ L’ imitation des formules grecques par le genitif absolu 
j3aaL\ivovTos ou. Tvpavi/ovvros, etc., explique suffisamment, par 1’ influence 
naturelle du monnayage, ce que la locution pourrait au premier aspect 
avoir de surprenant.” 
The last observation calls attention to yet another case in which 
Indian practice has been affected by Greek example. 
Following Sir A. Cunningham, I described (page 142) in my former 
paper a brief record at Jamalgarhi as “ seven unintelligible letters, read 
as Sapliae danamukha , incised on the back of the nimbus of one of the 
statues supposed to be those of kings.” Mr. Senart (page 24) shows 
that the correct reading is saphala danamukha , “ c’ est a dire ‘don meri- 
toire.’ ” This word danamukha is unknown in literature, but occurs in 
the inscriptions on the Bliimaran vase and. the Manikyala cylinder. 
Mr. Senart is unable at present to decide whether or not the word ddna- 
mukha implies a shade of meaning slightly different from that of the 
simple ddnatn, and contents himself with noting (page 26) that in the 
inscriptions where the longer expression occurs it is not accompanied by 
the name of the gift in apposition, like ddnam thambho, thdpo ddnatn , etc. 
Pages 27-31 of his paper are devoted by Mr. Senart to the discus¬ 
sion of the Zeda inscription. He is unable to give a complete translation 
of this record, but it is satisfactory to find that it is certainly dated in 
the year 11, in the reign of Kanishka, as deciphered by Sir A. Cunning¬ 
ham. 
The short record, which is numbered II by Mr. Senart, is also a 
votive inscription, and, subject to certain reservations, is thus translated 
(page 27) ; “An 68, le seizieme (16) jour du mois Praushthapada. Don 
de...vadhitirana et de ses compagnons.” 
It is not known to what object it was attached, but doubtless it 
was a sculpture of some sort. The era is, of course, also undetermined. 
If it is that of Kanishka, the date would be 78 -f 68 = A. D. 146. If it 
is that of either of Moga or Gondophares the date would be about A. D. 
20. Either date is quite possible, but, if the earlier one is correct, we 
may be quite certain that the sculpture showed no trace of Roman in¬ 
fluence, though it may have been Hellenistic in style. 
The two statuettes from Sikri of which M. Senart gives excellent 
phototype plates are both well executed, and seem to belong to the best 
period of the Gandhara school. 
The first represents the Buddha seated, reduced to a state of ex¬ 
treme emaciation by the austerities which he practised in the first stage 
of his religious life. Mr. Senart cannot remember having seen any other 
ancient representation of the Buddha in this condition, but notes (page 
