________________
50
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
FEBRUARY, 1908.
: | 11
There is another evidence, which shows independently of numismatics, that the Sakas ruled in India before the Kuşāna family, but this has been altogether ignored by Dr. Fleet. He has repeatedly stated that Rājüvala and his son Sodába were contemporaries of Vasudeva and that they kept him out of Mathura but this statement is not supported by a single fact :-On the other hand the characters of the three inscriptions of Sodāns are decidedly archaic and earlier than those of the inscriptions of the Kuşānas. These inscriptions constitute a special group in Indian palæography which shows the transition between the earliest inscriptions from Mathura and the inscriptions of the Kuşana period.5 Dr. Bühler has taken the characters of these inscriptions as the Northern types of Kşatrapa characters and has devoted a separate section to them. His remarks in the second volume of the Epigraphia Indica leave no doubt as to this - "Though the precise date assigned to Sodass may be doubted, still he must have ruled at Mathura in the first centary B. C., before the time of Kaniska and his successor." And again the Mahak atrapas of Mathura must have passed away before the Kuşanas reigned there."
These three inscriptions prove that there was a line of foreign rulers in Northern India before the Kuşanas. Then again numismatics prove the existence of several other rulers who were also foreigners. They may be of Persian origin as Mr. Thomas takes them, but even then to the main body of the Indian people they were Sakas. The only other statement of Dr. Fleet which seems to me to be peculiar is that Kozoulo-Kadphises and Hima-Kadphises were preceded by Kaniska, Huviska, and Väsudeva, and that t'ey belong to quite a different dynasty. Dr. Fleet has found & supporter of this viewDr. Otto Francke. There is no doubt about the fact that KozouloKadphises and Wema-Kadphises were Kuşadas, as on their coin legends they are expressly called 80. Then the types of the coins of these princes are decidedly earlier, and at the same time connected by a symbol to those of Kaniska, Huvišks, and Vasudeva. These two facts prove that Kozoulo-Kadphises and Wema-Kadphises belong to the same group as Kaniska, Haviska, and Vasudeva, and that former two princes preceded the later three. On the data at present available the exact relationship between Kozoulo and Hema-Kadphises and Kanişka cannot be determined. Indian numismatics has vastly improved since the days of James Prinsep, and his suggestion that the Kadphises belonged to a separate group can hardly be relied on at the present date. With regard to the latest argument of Dr. Fleet, adduced in favour of his theory, it may be said that the remarks of Hiuen Thsang bimself makes it impossible to place any reliance on them. The traditional date of Kaniska, which places him four hundred years after the death of Gautama Buddha, is a mere tradition. The exact date of Buddha's death still remains to be ascertained, and Dr. Fleet's assumption that Buddha died in 482 B. C. is a mere theory. Hiuen Thsang himself states that "As regards the period since Buddha's ņirvana the schools are of very diverse views. Some say it dates back over twelve hundred years, others over thirteen hundred years, a third section over fifteen hundred years, others again over nine hundred. Yet Done say thousand. On this the statement of Dr. Francke, “The Tang-Annals and the Sui-Annals each get different dates from these, so that it is impossible to fix the accession of Kanişka by this data," seems to be conclusive 10
The second theory of the second group is that put forth by Messrs. Pergasson and Oldenberg. It holds that Kaniska founded the Saka ere and that the dates in the Kisana inscriptions should be referred to that era. It has already been shown that this theory was based upon insufficient grounds and so it is untenable. But in spite of that we find eminent scholars still maintaining that the Kuşana inscriptions should be referred to the Saka era. Dr. Bühler never clearly expressed any opinion on this point, but the general tenor of his writings express that the
• J. R. A. 8., 1904, p. 706.
• Dr. Blooh has fully dealt with those inscriptions in bis paper "An Inscribed Buddhist Statue from Brävaati." J. 4. 8. B., Vol. LXVII, Part I, 1898, p. 274.
• E. I, Vol. II, p. 196. 1.., February, 1906, p. 47.
J.R. 4. 8., October, 1906, p. 979. Beal'. Buddhist Record of the Western Words, Vol. II, p. 38. .
. A., February, 1906, p. 18.
