Epigraphia Indica Vol 14

SR No.: 032568
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sten Konow, F W Thomas
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1917
Total Pages: 480
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 24 MB

Page 349

294
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XIV.
great importance. It must be a very old tradition, and we have no reason to reject any portion of it, unless it can be disproved. I know that most European scholars, though many of them speak with respect about Indian tradition, do not usually take any notice of it, but I am unable to see why. And with regard to the narrative of the Kalakacharyakathånaka I see no reason wbatever why we should disbelieve it. I have shown elsewhere that there are good reasons for assuming the existence of a Mälava king Vikramaditya at an early date, and that the oldest dates in the Malava-Vikrama ers are recorded according to a system which is quite different from that followed in old Kharðshthi insoriptions, and which is probably the old national Indian one. I think the only sensible course is to abandon the idea that the Vikrama era was established by foreigners and return to the traditional theory that it dates back to an Indian ruler of Malaya, who upset the rule of Saka conquerors. As remarked by Dr. Fleet, everything we know about Indian eras is to the effect that they were started by individual kings, and, though the Vikramn era was later on known as the era of the Mälava corporation, I do not think that Dr. Thomas has succeeded in making it probable that "it dates from the foundation of the tribal independence of the Malavas:"3
The oldest dates in the Saka Ona are recorded in the same way as the ancient Khardshhi inscriptions, and this state of things makes it almost certain that Dr. Thomas was right in assuming that these latter ones were likewise dated in a Saka era. The second Saka era, of A.D. 78, was according to the Kilakacharyakathånaka founded by the Saka raler who oasted the dynasty of Vikramaditya and "again." subjected India to the sway of the Sakas. I have already remarked that I identify this Saka ruler with Vima-Kadphises, who again" conquered India and appointed a governor to 'rule the country. If we remember that Surat and Malava were the countries which the Sakas invaded at the invitation of Kalaka, when he asked them to accompany him to India, it becomes probable that the governor whom Vima-Kadphises appointed was the first of the Western Kshatrapas, i.e. in my opinion, Bhimaka-Ysamotika. It is thus easily explained why the insoriptions of the Western Kshatrapas are dated in the Baka era.
It now Vima-Kadphises was the ruler who established the saka era, he can scarcely be the king alladed to in the Taxila inscription. His conquest of India did not probably take place in the first year of his reign, and we may roughly place his accession in A.D. 75. His father, who died as an octogenarian, would then have been born oiroa 5 B.O. A coording to Professor Branke the consolidation of the Kushaņa empire under Kujala-Kadphises had not taken place in A.D. 24, but did not happen long after that date. In 1. 5 of the so-onlled Takht-i-Bahi inscription I read orjhuna Kaphasa puyas, " in honour of prince Kapla." This prince Kapea can hardly bo anybody else than Kajula-Kadphises, of whom we know that he invaded Parthia. The Takht-i-Bahi inacription is dated in the year 103 of the era which I follow Dr. Thomas in considering as an old Saks institution. It can, of course, be anterior to A.D. 24, but scarcely much later. The initial date of the ers would accordingly not fall later than about 75 B.C., but might fall some years earlier. At least there cannot be any question of the Vikrams era, which, I think, we must finally ascribe to Central India. With an initial date in or şbout 75 B.O., the year 136 would fall about A.D. '60, at a date when there can be noquestion of placing Vima-Kadphinos ; and, even if we were to assume that Kujala-Kadphises Ascended the throne as much as 10-15 years after A.D. 24, the Taxila inscription would still have to be ascribed to Kajula-Kadphises. It should finally be borne in mind that we have the definite 'statement about him in Chinese sources that he assumed the title * King of Kueighuang," i.e. Kushana king
ABAW.1916, p. 813. • JR48., 1914, p. '14. • 8RAW., 1916, p. 814
. Above, pp. 186 #. • JR48., 1913, p. 687. • Beiträge, p. 72.