________________
FEBRUARY, 1908.
SOYTHIAN PERIOD OF INDIAN HISTORY.
51
Kagana dates should be referred to the Saka era. Though General Cunningham had pat forth two theories on Kuşans dates, yet in his last work we find that he places the Saka era by the side of the Seleucidan ers in the interpretation of Kuşana dates.11 Mr. Rapson, in his Indian Coins, says
the Saka era has unusually been supposed to date from the abhisika of Kaniska at Mathura.13 Last of all Mr. V. A. Smith, before he undertook to prove the use of the Laukika era in Kusana inscriptions, was of opinion that the date of the accession of Kanişka lies between B. C. 57 and 78 A.D., and probably took place in the year 65 A. D.13 Later on, when he published his paper on the chronology of the Kushān period, he makes the following objections to the use of the Saka era in the Kuşada inscriptions: -
(1) The current belief that Kaniska ascended the throne in 78 A. D. adds half a century to the gap between the Kuşanas and the Guptas and is less easily reconcilable with palæographic facts.
(2) The Saka or Sālivāhana era originated in Western India and did not come even into partial use in Northern India until a late period.
(3) The theories of Oldenberg and Bbāndārkar, which agree in doctrine that the Kuşans inscriptions are dated according to the Saka era, require as, contrary to all probability, to assume that the Saka reckoning was adopted for a century in Northern India and then dropped.
dropped. The arguments of Mr. Bhāndārkar have already been dealt with above and we have seen that -
(1) Kaniska was a Saka ; (2) The Kuşans inscriptions are not dated in any era with the hundreds omitted ; and
(3) It is possible to place the accession of Kaniska about the year 78 A.D. If Kaniska was a Saka, and his accession took place in or about 78 A. D., the natural tendency is to connect him with the Indian era, whose initial year falls in 78-9 A. D. and which is known by the name of Saka era. But serions obstacles mentioned above have been raised against the use of this era in Northern India. The first objection is that the use of the Saka era adds half a centary more to the gap between the Kuşanas and the Guptas than does the Laukika theory, and so is less reconcilable with paleographical facts. As regards the palæography of the Kuşana inscriptions, Mr. Smith says :- "It is not always easy by mere inspection to distinguish an inscription of the Kuşana from one of the Gupta period. Many alphabetical forms specially characteristic of the Gupta inscriptions are found sporadically in Kuşana records, while on the other hand Gupta documents often exhibit archaic forms specially characteristic of the Kuşans age." The above statement is only partially true, because a number of Kupana records do not at all exhibit later forms, but on the other hand exhibit many archaic formg.
The study of Kuşana and cognate inscriptions leads one to the following conclusions:
(1) The inscriptions which are marked as archaic in the list on pages 37, 38 above do not belong to the Kusana period proper but to an earlier one.
(2) The majority of Buddhist inscriptions exhibit arcbaic forms. Compare Nos. 1, 2, and 29 of the list.
(3) Archaic forms are absent from the majority of the Jaina inscriptions. Thus, out of 57 inscriptions in the list which are undoubtedly Jaina and belong to the Kuşana period, only 10 inscriptions exhibit archaic forms.
(4) The characters of the Buddhist inscriptions are angular, neatly incised, and pleasing to the eye. Compare Nos. 1, 2, 29, 34, 89, and 48 of the list.
(5) The characters of the Jaina inscriptions are extremely cursive, in most cases incorrect and ugly.
11 The date referred to here in the year 64 on the Bodh Gaya image inscription which Cunningham believed to be a Kagana date, but it has been proved above that this is really a Gupta dato. Seo Cunningham's Mahabodhi, Pp. 7 and 21. 11 Indian Coins, p. 18.
11 V. A. Smith's Jaina Stupa of Mathurā and other Antiquitiss, pp. 4-5. 14 J. R. A. 8., 1909, p. 35.
