Indian Antiquary Vol 37

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 38

32
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
FEBRUARY, 1908.
The earliest Leakika date is that of the Baijnath Prasasti,year 80 and Saks 1126, i..., 1204-5. The mere mention in astronomical works of the imaginary motion of the seven Rạis (the Great Bear) does not prove that the era was in use at that time. There is no proof that the Saptarsi era or Loka Kāla was in use before the Gapta period. Albergni's statements do not in any way interfere with the above statement,
Mr. Smith then proceeds to deal with the notices of Chinese historians enamerated above and tries to adapt their statements to his theory. After the final defeat of the Yuv-chi in 165 B. C. they migrated to the west and on their way met the Wa-Sun. In the fight which followed the Wu-San were worsted. This may have taken place in B. C. 163. The Yao-chi, though they defeated the Wu-San, were not able to appropriate their lands and passed on westwards. They next came into conflict with the Se or the Sok, who were also defeated, and, abandoning their lande, migrated southwards. This probably took place about the year 160 B. O., but the Yue-chi were not allowed to remain in peaceful possession of the conquered lands. The son of slain Wu-Sun chieftain, who had grown to manhood under the protection of the Hiung-Nu, attacked them to avenge the death of bis father and drove them further west. Mr. Smith places this event in B. C. 140 on the ground that at least twenty years are necessary for an infant to grow into manhood. This is not admissible. The age of an infant may be anything from a month to eight or ten years. Assuming that at the time of his father's death, Kwen-Mo was four or five years of age we find that an interval of ten or twelve years is quite snfficient to allow him to be of fighting age, for, in the north, they begin to fight early, Babar ascended the throne when he was in his teens and Akbar fought the second battle of Panipat long before he was twenty. It is quite possible that Kwen-Mo drove the Yue-chi out of the lands of the Sok in or about the year 150 B, C. The Yde-chi then migrated towards Tāhis. According to Mr. Smith, the Yue-chi arrived in Tähis in the year 138 B. C., but, as we have seen, the year 148 B. C. would be somewhere nearer the mark. Mr. Smith for some unknown reason maintains that the Yue-chi remained to the north of the Oxus up to the year 115 B. C. Chang-Kian died in the year 115 B. O., and the messengers he sent to other countries are said to bave returned at the same time. This seems to be the only reason in favour of Mr. Smith's statement. Cbang-Kian returned to China in the year 122 B. O., and up to that time only authentic information about the position of the Yue-chi was available. Mr. Smith and M. Boyer distinguish two stages in the conquest of Tähia or Bactria by the Yue-chi. The first is that the Yue-chi occupied the ancient Persian province of Sogdians to the north of the Oxus, while they exercised supreme influence over the weak rulers of Bactrian cities, and the next is that they crossed the river and destroyed the remains of Greek sovereignty in that province. But is it at all necessary to do this? A nomad people driven forward by an enemy wonld not pause at a distance to exercise overlordship over a weak people, but would, on the other hand, try to place themselves at a greater distance from their enemies without the slightest regard for the people whom they supplant and destroy. The Chinese description of the state of Bactris fully supports this, for we find that the people of Tāhia had no unity and were peace-loving. Moreover, the Greek kingdom was, at this time, convulsed by an internal struggle, probably led by the brothers, Holiokles and Apollodotos, after the demise of their father, Eakratidas. Chinese annals sufficiently prove that the Bactrian Greeks were unable to offer any resistance to the Domad hordes.
Mr. Smith places the deposition of Heliocles in 130 B.O. which is possible. The next mention of Yue-chi is in Parku's annals of the first Han dynasty. It is rplated there that the Yue-chi had lost their nomad habits and bad divided themselves into five groups or principalities. Mr. Smith assumes that three generations must have elapsed before the Yue-chi lost their nomadic babits, but parallel cases are not rare in history, and actual experience has found that the time required by a nomadic people for the losing of their roving habits need not be so long. In fact, one generation of twentyfite or thirty years is quite sufficient for this purpose, and it is quite possible that the Yue-chi had lost their nomad babits and divided themselves into five kingdoms by the year 100 B. C. Maghals, who bad fought under Bairam Khan at Panipat in 1666, wore peacefully settled in Bengal and Bebär