________________
No. 28.]
SO-CALLED TAKHT-I-BAHI INSCRIPTION OF THE YEAR 103.
records should be referred to one and the same era, so that there are, accordingly, 25 years between the Patika plate and the so-called Takht-i-Bahi inscription, or, in other words, between Moga and Gudufara.
273
Such an interval is about what we would expect, considering the fact that only the king or kings known as Azes and Azilises seem to intervene between them. The reason why this inference has never been drawn is probably that Cunningham's dictum, that the inscription is dated in the 26th year of the reign of Gudufara, has never been challenged. I have already stated above that a comparison of other ancient records necessarily leads us to the conclusion that the Gudufara inscription is dated in the year 26 of some era which may or may not coincide with his individual reign. And if it is admitted that Moga was still reigning about 17 B.C. or perhaps even later, and that we have absolutely no real reason for referring the Gudufara date to the Vikrama era, we are inevitably led to the conclusion that the year 26 refers to an era established by some of Gudufara's predecessors, and in that case there cannot be the question of any other ruler than Azes. If, therefore, we refer the Patika date and the Gadufara date to the same era, it will be seen that the era which I think commemorates the accession of Azes begins one year before the Patika date. But then his record hails from Taxila, while the socalled Takht-i-Bahi inscription only informs us of the fact that, 25 years later, the rule of another dynasty had extended its sway as far eastward as Takht-i-Bahi or Shahbazgaṛhi. The conquest of Taxila did not take place in the first year of the Parthian era.
There is nothing inconsistent in this supposition. The Saka conquest started from Seistan, reached the Indus country and thence extended over Taxila and Gandhara. The Parthian dynasty, to which Gudufara belonged, came from the west through the Kabul country. It found a Saka era in use in the conquered territories, and the use of this era had become so firmly established that a subject of Gudufara, 26 years after the establishment of Parthian rule, thought it necessary to record the date of his epigraph, not only in the Parthian era, but also in the old Saka reckoning.
Nor can we wonder at the absence of any later reference to the Parthian era. The dynasty founded by Azes was short-lived. After Gudufara's reign it was replaced by the Kushāņas, the successors of the Sakas, in the Kabul country and in Taxila, and the second Kushāņa ruler, Vima Kadphises, reconquered "India", i.e., the Indus country and probably also Kathiawar and Central India, and I still think that that event was commemorated through the institution of the Saka era, as stated in the Kalakacharyakathanaka. In other words, the Saka era commemorates the final re-establishment of Indo-Skythian rule after the interruption caused by the Parthian conquest, and it is a revival of the Saka era introduced after the first Saka conquest of India. In this way it also becomes intelligible why Chinese sources speak of Vima Kadphises' conquest as a re-conquest.
I agree with Messrs. Foucher and Rapson that the first Saka conquest must be subsequent to the demise of Mithradates II in 88 B.C. The subsequent weakening of Parthian power made it possible for the Sakas of Seistan to assert their independence, and the strengthening of their power resulting from the immigration of new Saka hordes led to an expansion of their realm into the Indus country. We do not know who the first Śaka conqueror was. We only know the name of the Saka ruler or rulers Maues, Moga, and we have seen that Moga was still ruling 25 years before the Gudufara inscription.
It has been customary to speak of several rulers intervening between Moga and Gudufara, one or two bearing the name Azes and one or two called Azilises. Opinions differ as to the nationality of this or. these rulers. Some scholars think that they were Parthians, others that they were Salas. I have never been able to understand why it should be necessary to assume
Cf.iny remarks, S. B. 4. W., 1916, pp. 811 f.; Ep. Ind., XIV, pp. 293.
2 x
