________________
268
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[NOVEMBER, 1917
The results may appear to be too startling for serious consideration ; but, when calmly considered, they are found to be opposed to nothing but vague prejudices inherited from earlier writers, who had to form their conclusions on very insufficient grounds.
The Northern Satraps have usually been referred to very early times, but there are no positive data to determine their dates, and their chronological position has been fixed solely with reference to that of the Greeks and the Kushans. As the date of the Kushans is the matter of dispute, it would be begging the question to rely upon it, and the Greek chronology is far from being settled as yet. It must never be forgotten that numismatic and palæographic evidences can only supply relative dates and never an absolute one (unless of course the coins are dated in a known era, which however is not the case in the present instance). When specific dates are given to a king on numismatic and palæographic evidences, they are simply conjectured on the basis of the dates of other king, or of kings with relation to whom his chronological position has been established by means of coins and inscriptions. Everything therefore depends upon the latter, and the specific dates of the former, arrived at by numismatic and palæographic evidences, possess no more value than may be attached to it. We should therefore distinguish the numismatic and palæographic facts from the theories based upon them. The establishment of these facts requires a great deal of technical skill and observation, and they should not be slightly treated, when their accuracy is established by the joint testimony of a number of experts in these branches. The chronological theories established on the basis of these facts do not stand however on the same footing. They are based on some assumptions with regard to historical events, and must stand or fall with them. As regards the Northern Satraps, early dates were assigned to them on the basis of the assumed date for the extinction of the Greek rule in India. This was first taken to be 120 B. C. and next shifted to a period 100 years later, but even this did not Nest on secure grounds. Already a still later date has been proposed and generally accepted, and more shifting will probably take place in future. While therefore we should accept in general the priority of the Greek sovereigns, we are unable to rely much upon any specific date assigned to the Northern Satraps. The proposed date for the Northern Satraps is not therefore primâ facie an impossible one.
There seems to be a consensus of opinion among the scholars as regards the date of Gondophares, but the unanimity is more apparent than real. By a curious coincidence they have come to maintain the same point, though their views are based on diametrically opposite principles. Thus Dr. Fleet arrives at the date by referring the year 103 of the Takht-i-Bahai inscription to the Vikrama Samvat of 58 B.C., which he considers to be the hiztoric era of Northern India being founded by the great emperor Kanishka. Dr. Thomas, Mr. V. A. Smith and Mr. Rapson, who all deny any association between Kanishka and Vikrama Samvat, and do not even recognise the possibility of the Vikrama Samvat having ever been used in those regions at so early a period, arrive at the same conclusion on numismatic and palæographic evidences, which place Gondophares a little before Kanishka, whom they refer to about A.D. 78.
The position with regard to Gondophares is briefly this: A Christian tradition associates him with the apostle St. Thomas and thus refers him to the middle of the first century A.D. It is generally admitted, however, that the tradition by itself is unworthy of serious belief.
