________________
SOME PROBLEMS OF SAKA CHRONOLOGY 447 inscription of the Saka ruler Rudradāman I, who flourished in the middle of the second century A.D. In Ptolemy's time Taxila was included within the Arsa (Sanskrit Uraśā) territory, and Mathurā belonged to the Kaspeiraioi.? Dr. Majumdar suggests that Ptolemy probably noticed the Saka empire of Maues and his successors (which included Taxila, Mathurā and Ujjayini) under the name of 'Kaspeiraioi.' But we should remember that far from including Taxila, Mathurā and Western India within one empire, Ptolemy sharply distinguishes the land of the Kaspeiraioi from Indo-Scythia which was the real Saka domain in the middle of the second century A.D.4 Moreover, the territory of the Kaspeiraioi must have included the region below the sources of the Jhelum, Chenab and the Ravi, i.e., Kaśmira and its neighbourhood ; 5 and there is no evidence that the dynasty of Maues ever ruled in Kaśmira. It was only under the kings of Kanishka's dynasty that Kaśmira and Mathurā formed parts of one and the same empire. As suggested by the Abbé Boyer the Kaspeiraioi of Ptolemy evidently referred to the Kushān empire.
We learn from the Mathurā Lion Capital Inscriptions that when Sudasa, i.e. Sodāsa, was ruling as a mere Kshatrapa, Kusuluka Patika was a Mahākshatrapa. As Sodāsa was a Mahākshatrapa in the year 72, he must have been a
1. Ind. Ant., 1884, p. 348. 2 Ind. Ant., 1884, p. 350.
3. Journal of the Department of Letters, University of Calcutta, Vol. I, p. 98 n.
4 Cf. Ptolemy, Ind. Ant., 1884, p. 354, and the Junagadh inscription of the Saka ruler Rudradāman.
5 Land of Kaśyapa? Rājatarangini, 1, 27. IA. IV, 227. Stein accepts the identification of the territory of the Kaspeiraioi with Kaśmir, but rejects Wilson's assumption that Kaśmir was derived from Kaśyapa pura (JASB, 1899, Extra 2, pp. 9-13). The evidence of Ptolemy seems to suggest that the city of Kaspeira stood close to Multan. Alberuni (I. 298) in a later age mentions Kaśyapapura as a name of Multan itself.
