A Note on the Girdharpur Brahmi Inscription of the Year 28
By Sten Konow
Summary
The Girdharpur Brahmi inscription (c. 28 CE, Kanishka's reign) records a perpetual gift of 4,100 products by a donor identified as *pracini Konusarvkamana-putena Khavdsalerapoatina Vakanapati*, son of Rukamana. The inscription's date aligns with Vasiska's reign, though debates persist about the chronology of Kanishka's era. The donor's title *Vakanapati* (possibly "lord of Wakhan") and the use of Macedonian month-names (e.g., *Gorpiaios*) suggest North-Western influence, possibly indicating a noble from the old Kusana territories. The text critiques earlier interpretations, including the reading of *tikana* as *pracini* and the assumption of Turki titles in 3rd-century India. It concludes that the inscription reflects Kusana nobles' occasional visits to Mathura, possibly for administrative or charitable purposes, though details about figures like Yamataksama remain unclear. The analysis emphasizes the need for caution in linking geographical designations to later historical contexts.
Conclusion
This analysis of the Girdharpur Brahmi inscription significantly narrows the chronology of Vasiska’s reign, positioning it within a condensed timeframe during Kanishka’s Year 28. By reconciling conflicting calendrical interpretations and emphasizing the inscription’s August–September dating, it challenges earlier assumptions about the duration of Kanishka’s era and the sequencing of imperial events. The study further interrogates the socio-political context, questioning the anachronistic application of titles like *tigin* and critiquing the speculative link between the donor’s epigraphic designations and Turki influence. The focus on the *pracini* variant and its potential connection to Vakana underscores regional linguistic dynamics, while the geographic implications of Khardsalera’s unlocated identity invite further investigation into Kushan territorial networks. Ultimately, the analysis refines our understanding of Kushan chronology and epigraphic culture, highlighting the need for cautious interpretation of titles and chronological frameworks in early Indian historiography.