________________
No. 39.]
KALAWAN COPPER-PLATE INSCRIPTION OF THE YEAR 134.
257
With regard to the reckoning used in the Jihomika inscription, it is evident that it is the bame as that of the Patika plate, and it is probable that also some other records should be referred to it.
Such is the case with the Maira well inscription of the year 58, if it actually contains tlo name Moa, i.e. Moga ; with the Mānsehra inscription, which seems to be dated in the year 68, and which mentions a certain Lia, who may have something to do with the Kshatrapa Liaka of the Patika plate ; with the Shahdaur inscription of the rājan Damijada, whose name reminda us of that of the Western Kshatrapa Dāmaysada, and perhaps with the Fatehjang, Loriyan Tangai, Jamalgarhi, Hashtnagar, and Skärah Dheri inscriptions of the years 68, 318, 359, 381 and 399, respectively.
With regard to the epoch of this old Saks era, various dates have been suggested. Sir John Marshall, 1 once thought of ca. 95 B.C., but is now inclined to go back to the middle of the second century; the late Mr. Banerji' suggested ca. 100 B.C., Mr. Jayaswal' ca. 123, and Professor Rapson ca. 150. It seems to me that the last mentioned scholar cannot have been far from being right.
The Jihonika inscription was found on a silver vase, which was much worn when it was buried at the sack of Sirkap. It may have been about twenty-five years old at that date. The Kushāna conquest of Taksha silā, which led to the destruction of Sirkep, can roughly be dated ca. A.D. 65. At the time of the Takht-i-Bāhi inscription of the year 103, i.e. A. D. 46, the ruler was the Parthian Gondophernes. And we know that other Parthian rulers intervened between him and the Kushānas. Moreover, I cannot accept Professor Rapson's6 criticism of my reading and interpretation of l. 5 of the Takht-i-Bāhi inscription erjhuna Kapasa puyae, in honour of Prince Kapa, i.e. Kujūla Kadphises. On the stone I could not see traces of letters between Kapa and sa. If I am right, Kvjūla's career of conquest had not begun in A. D. 46. At the time of the Panjtar inscription of the year 122, i.e., A. D. 65, on the other hand, the Kushāna power had become established, and at the date of the silver-scroll inscription of the year 136, i.e. A. D. 79, the sack of Sirkap seems to have been an event of the past. If we assume that the Jihonika vase was made about A. D. 40, the epoch of the era would be 191- 40, i.e. about 150 B.C.
In that case the Patika plate would be dated in the year 150-78, i.e. about 72 B.C. Patika was then evidently a young man, without any official position or title. If he were then about twenty years old and about sixty-five when he appears as Mahākshatrapa on the Lion Capital, the date of the latter would be about 25 B.C. At that time there was another Mahakshatrapa in Mathura, vis. Rājula, who had a son, the Kshatrapa Sodāsa. The latter may have been about twenty-five years old, and it would be reasonable to assume that he was about sixty-five at the time when he appears as Mahākshatrapa in the Amohini tablet of the Vikrama year 72,"ie. A. D. 15. Such calculations are, of course, not decisive. But they raise a certain presumption in favour of an epoch about 150 B. C. 1J.R.A. 8., 1914, p. 986,
Ind, Ant., XIxvil, 1908, p. 67. J. B.O.R.S., xvi, p. 240.
• The Cambridge History of India, i, p. 570. J. R. A. 8., 1930, p. 189.
As seen by Professor Thomas, Góltingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1931, p. 6, the final sentonoo of the plata must be read mamahadanapati Patika saja wajhae[na] Rohinimitrera ya imam sanngharame narakamika, the great gift-lord Patiks together with the wpadhyaya Rohinimitrs, who is overseer of works in this Samgharama There is, aocordingly, no mention of the title jadra as proposed by me, Corpus, p. ovii f.
"I cannot agree with Professor Rapson, Acta Orientalia, xi, pp. 260 ff., that the St. Andrew's Oromo aymbol in the tablet stands for 40. It seems to me that Professor Lüders, Acla Orientalia, x, pp. 118 ff., has proved that it must be read a 70. The manuscript fragments where the symbol is used in that way osme from North. Western India, and I do not quite undertaed Profesor Rapeon when he says that they are "pomowlut dietantly removed in place, if not in time, from tho Mathuri inscriptions."
