________________
466 POLITICAL HISTORY OF ANCIENT INDIA
Franke) was accepted by Kennedy, but was ably controverted by Dr. Thomas, and can no longer be upheld after the discoveries of Marshall. Inscriptions, coins as well as the testimony of Hiuen Tsang clearly prove that Kanishka's dominions included Gandhara, but we have already seen that according to Chinese evidence Yin-mofu, and not the Kushāns, ruled Kipin (Kapiśa-Gandhāra) in the second half of the first century B.C. Allan thinks that "the gold coinage of Kanishka was suggested by the
especially by the princes and people of Malava. The connection of the name Vikrama with the era grew up gradually and was far from being generally adopted even in the ninth century A.D. The phraseology employed in the poems and inscriptions of the next centuries shows a gradual advance from the simple Samvat to Vikrama Samvat, Śrinripa Vikrama Samvat and so on. The change in nomenclature was probably brought about by the princes and people of Gujarat whose hostility to the Malavas is well known. The Satavahanas could not have founded this or any other era because they always used regnal years, and Indian literature distinguishes between Vikrama and Śalivahana. As to the claims of Azes, see Calcutta Review, 1922, December, pp. 493-494. Fleet points out (JRAS., 1914, 995 ff.) that even when the name of a real king stands before the statement of the years, so that the translation would be "in the year of such and such a king" he is not necessarily to be regarded as the actual founder of that particular reckoning. The nomenclature of an era, current in a comparatively late period, more than a century after its commencement, is no proof of origins. Therefore, the use of the terms Ayasa or Ajasa in connection with the dates 134 and 136 of the Kalawan and Taxila inscriptions, does not prove that Azes was the founder of the particular reckoning used. His name may have been connected with the reckoning by later generations in the same way as the name of the Valabhi family came to be associated with the Gupta era, that of Satavahana with the Saka era, and that of Vikrama with the "Krita" - Malava reckoning itself which commenced in 58 B.C. Regarding the claims of Vikrama see Bhand. Com. Vol. and Ind. Ant., cited above. The Puranas while mentioning Gardabhilla are silent about Vikramaditya. Jaina tradition places Vikramaditya after 'Nahavahana, or Nahapana. Regarding the contention of Fleet that the Vikrama era is a northern reckoning attention may be invited to the observations of Kielhorn and to a note on Chola-Pandya Institutions contributed by Professor C. S. Srinivasachari to The Young Men of India, July, 1926. The Professor points out that the era was used in Madura in the 5th century A. D. Kielhorn proves conclusively that the area where the era of 58 B.C. was used in the earliest times did not include the extreme north-west of India.
1 Thomas, JRAS.. 1913; Marshall, JRAS., 1914.
