________________
4. SANSKRIT
Bharatavarsha in an inscription. Kharavela is described as invading Bharatavarsha, which then evidently denoted only North India [ Basak, p. 393 ].
First Sanskrit Inscription: 150 AD The earliest inscription in Sanskrit is by the Saka Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman at Junagarh in Gujarat dated to AD 150. However, even here several of the words are wrong according to Sanskrit grammatical rules, some words show Prakrit influence and a few are un-Paninian [ Basak 397-8]. This inscription is several centuries later than the earliest Prakrit inscriptions, and are the creation of Sakas, not Arya kings.
In fact all inscriptions in India were in Prakrit (vernacular languages) till the early centuries of AD.
It is evident that Chandasa was renamed as Sanskrit inorder to claim predating Sanskrit writings.
Chandase was the well as Sanchest
Alexander Harris explains it as follows: http://www.appiusforum.com/sanskrit.html
"The stone pillar inscription of Samudra Gupta (AD 330 to 380) written in Sanskrit and a late Brahmi script called the Gupta script is an undated inscription incised on an Asokan pillar at Allahabad. Composed by Harisena, a commander-in-chief of the king it describes elaborately the moral, intellectual and military achievements of this king. This inscription possibly dates 350 AD.
"A key evidence often presented in the dating of Sanskrit is Patanjali's Vyakarana - Mahabhasya (Great Commentary). The Mahabhasya is both a defense of the grammarian Panini against his chief critic and detractor Katyayana and a refutation of some of Panini's aphorisms. Patanjali is dated anywhere from 2nd c BC to 5th c AD.
On Patanjali's date, the composition of the Mahabhasya and its early tradition, Joshi and Roodbergen write,
It is nearly unanimously agreed that Patanjali has lived around 140 BC. But as stated by Winternitz, we are not in a position to confirm that this is the correct date. The question largely depends on the other question, namely, whether Patanjali was the author of the examples he quotes. According to Tarn, there is nothing conclusive in Patanajli's assumed date, precisely 117
