________________
132
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
who became king eight years before the death of Buddha, and reigned 32 years; this makes it even more impossible to believe in the dates mentioned above. So either the date of Mahavira must be moved nearer the commencement of our era, or that of Buddha must be moved backwards. However, the date 527 B. c. is a traditional one, and the date 477 B. O, only a calculated one, so perhaps some one might find it easier to doubt the correctness of the latter. Moreover, the year of Buddha's death has been in some researches of the most recent years moved some years backwards : to 486 or 487 B. c. by Mr. Vincent A. Smith and others, or to 482-83 B. c. by Dr. Fleet. If this were really correct, there might be a possibility-but not more-of the correctness of the date 527 B. c. for Mahavira ; but I do not believe in these alterations. I shall here once more examine the main facts for the calculation of Buddha's death, in order to give proof of my opinion, that the fixing of 477 B. c. as the year of the Great Nirvana by General Cunningham and Professor Max Muller was probably as near to correctness as we can possibly attain.
The real chronology of India begins with Chandragupta after the invasion of Alexander. But the date of Chandragupta's accession or abhisheka is by no means absolutely fixed, varying between 325 and 312 B. c. according to different authorities. Moreover, the calculations of the time between Buddha and Chandragupta in old texts are not of great weight; and so I am convinced-sharing this opinion with M. Senart Ind. Ant. XX, 229 sq. and Mr. V. Gopala Aiyyer, ibd. XXXVII, 341 ff. amongst others—that it is only the inscriptions of Asoka that can afford us the possibility of obtaining a fixed starting point for the chronology. The suggestion of Buhler Ind. Ant. VI. 149 sq.; XXII, 299 sq. ; Ep. Ind. III, 134 sq. and Dr. Fleet J.R.A.S. 1904, p. 1 sq., that the number 256 at the end of the Siddapur, Sahasrâin and Rûpnâth edicts denotes 256 years elapsed since Buddha's death, has been completely refuted by Dr. F. W. Thomas, J. A. 1910, p. 507 sq., who has proved with undeniable evidence that this passage means that Asoka himself had been away from home 256 nights, when he had the edict published.57 Incredible as the suggestion was before the appearance of this article--for it is not very probable that Asoka should have denoted his spiritual master by the epithet vyutha, never used elsewhere, while on the Lumbini pillar he employs the well-known epithets Buddha, Sâkyamuni and Bhagavant—it has now totally lost all chronological importance. But M. Senart had long before found the starting point in the 13th Rock-Edict, where Asoka speaks of the Yona king Amtiyokas, and the four kings beyond his realm, Turamaya, Amtikina, Maka and Alikasudara, and I foliow him in this. Lassen Ind. Alt. II., 254 sg. had previously remarked, that the kings in question are Antiochos II Theos, king of Syria (261246 B. o.), Ptolemaios II of Egypt (d. 247 B. C.), Antigonos Gonatas of Macedonia (d. 239 B. o.), Magas of Cyrene (d. 258 B. c.) and Alexander of Epirus (d. probably 258 B. c.). Now the Rock Edicts were published when Asoka had been anointed 12 years, i.e., in the 13th year after his coronation, and no one can doubt or has doubted, as far as I know, that in the Ed. XIII he speaks of these five kings as alive. As he sent missionaries to them all, and stood, to judge from this, in a rather intimate connexion with them, it is impossible to suppose, that he should not have known one or two years after 258 B. C., that two of them were dead, one amongst these (Magas) being, moreover, a close relative of Ptolemaios; and the latter was one of the mightiest kings of his time, who had himself despatched the ambassador Dionysios to
# The conclusion of Dr. Floot, J. R. A. S. 1910, p. 1301 sq. based on the acceptance of the reading of Dr. Thomas is totally untonablo. The 256 days are explained in the only possible way by M. Lovi, J. A. 1917 p. 119 sq.
38 of. Rock-Ediot II, where probably the same kings are intended.