________________
No. 28.)
SO-CALLED TAKHT.I.BAHI INSCRIPTION OF THE YEAR 103.
275
The best known of the Saka rulers is Moga, who was still on the throne in the year 78 of the old Saka era. If it is granted that the establishment of that era must be subsequent to the year 88 B.C., the year 78 cannot be earlier than 10 or 9 B.C. The Patiks plate mentioning it is dated on the fifth Panemos. From the use of the Macedonian name we can infer that the year began, as in the Macedonian calendar, with the month Dios, i.e., it was Kärttikādi. The month Panemos corresponds to June. If the beginning of the era coincided with October 88 and the years were current, the earliest possible date for the Patiks plate would be June, 10 B.C., and if the years were elapsed, Jane, 9 B:0. It is not, however, probable that the era was established before one or two years after the demise of Mitbradates II. On the other hand, some time was required for Patika, who in the year 78 was not even a Kshatrapa, to acquire the rank of Mahakshatrape, and further for Sodāsa, who was Kshatrapa when Patika wa Mahakshatrapa, to be promoted to Mahakshatrapa, a position which he held in 15 A.D. We oan, therefore, with some confidence, state that the last ten years before the beginning of our ere must be the period when the Patiku plate was engraved.
Now I have tried to show that a new, Parthian, era had been established one year before the date of the Patiks plate, by Azes, the first Parthian conqueror of the Kábul country and Western Panjab, and that the so-called Takht-i-Bāhi inscription is dated in the 26th year of that era. That would take us to the time 16-20 A.D., which would be a very likely date for Gudufara, who is generally assumed to have come on the throne in 19 A.D.
Gudufara is, as I have already mentioned, certainly identical with the King Gondophares who, according to Christian tradition, summoned the apostle Thomas to his court. This tradition is not, however, of much use for chronological purposes. In the first place, the name of the king is not mentioned before the third or fourth century A.D., and, in the second, the whole tradition cannot prove anything more than that the name of the King Gudufara had become known in the Christian east about the time of Christ's death or of the first Christian mission.
We do not know how long Gudufara's rule lasted. We learn from the Panjtar inscription that a Kushāņa-Mahārāja (Gushana maharaya) had come into power in the year 122, i.e., 19 years after the date of our inscription, and from the Taxila silver scroll that this same Kushāna had assumed the imperial titles maharaja rājātiraja dēva putra 14 years later, in the year 136. If the so-called Takht-i-Bähi inscription belongs to one of Gudufara's first years, he cannot, accordingly, have held undisputed sway for more than about twenty years, and we do not know anything which militates against snoh an assumption.
With regard to the ralor mentioned in the Panitär and Taxila records opinions differ, but all scholars are agreed that it is the same ruler who is mentioned in both inscriptions. From & consideration of the find-places of the two epigraphs we can infer that he had, between the years 122 and 186, extended his sway eastwards, and the increase of his power consequent on this extension is illustrated in the higher titles used in the Taxila scroll. Bat both find-places full within the territory which the Chinese called Kipin, and which, according to them, was' con quered by Kadphises I, while "India", which was subdued by Kadphises II, must be located outside of Kipin.
In full agreement with this state of things Sir John Marshall' has shown good reasons for identifying the Kushāņa-Mahāraja of these records with Kajala Kadphises, and I am more convinced than ever that he is right, though the prevailing opinion seems to be that Vima Kadphises is the ruler mentioned.
Cf. Ep. Ind., XIV, pp. 290 ff.
* J. R. A. 8., 1914, pp. 977 f.
2 m
2
