We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Mr. M. P. Charlesworth seems to have been too sceptical when he remarked (Classical Quarterly, xxii, 1928, p. 93) that ‘the names of the Indian princelets given in the Periplus are unidentifiable, or rather too easily identifiable with any one, to be of any use’. Actually, the ruler mentioned in ch. 41 is identifiable beyond reasonable doubt, and (even more important) his date is practically certain.
page 139 note 1 Konow, Sten (J.I.H. xii, 1933Google Scholar ) once argued that there were two Nahapānas—an earlier and a later. This view never won any acceptance: and it was based on a palaeographical argument which was refuted by Rapson, in A.O. xi, p. 260Google Scholar .
