________________
448 POLITICAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT INDIA Kshatrapa before 72. Consequently Kusuluka Patika must have been reigning as a Mahūkshatrapa contemporary of the Kshatrapa Sodāsa before the year 72. The Taxila plate of the year 78, however, does not style Patika as a Kshatrapa or Mahakshatrapa. It calls him Mahādānapati (great gift-lord) and gives the satrapal title to his father Liaka.' Dr Fleet thinks that we have to do with two different Patikas. Marshall and Sten Konow on the other hand, hold the view that the Mahādānapati Patika, who-issued the Taxila plate, is identical with the Mahūkshatrapa Kusuluka Patika of the Mathură Lion Capital, but the era in which the inscription of Sam 72 is dated, is not the same as in the Taxila - plate of Sam 78. In other words while Fleet duplicates -- kings, Marshall- and Sten Konow. duplicate eras. It is difficult to come to any final decision from the scanty data at our disposal. Fleet's theory is not improbable in view of the fact that we have evidence regarding the existence of at least two Liakas. But the duplication of kings is not absolutely necessary as the designation ‘mahādānapati given to Patika in the Taxila plate does not preclude the possibility of his having been a Mahākshatrapa as well a few years back. We should remember in this connection that there are instances among the Western Kshatrapas of Chashtana's line, of Mahākshatrapas being reduced to a humbler rauk while other members of the family held the higher office, and of a Kshatrapa (Jayadāmav) being mentioned without the satrapal title. It is, therefore, not altogether improbable. that the inscription of Sam 72 and
i Sten Konow, Corpus, Vol. II, Pt. 1, 28 ; Ep. Ind. XIX, 257. 2 JRAS., 1913, 1001 n. 3 Cf. Majumdar, The Date of Kanishka, Ind. Ant., 1917. 4 Rapson, Coins of the Andhra Dynasty, etc., cxxiv f. 5 Andhau Inscriptions.
