The Date of Kanishka
BY J.H. Marshall, C.I.E., Litt.D., F.S.A.
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
1914, pp. 973-986
I
p. 973
In the discussion on the date of Kanishka which
took place last year much prominence was given to the
so-called Vikrama era of 58 B.C., and arguments were
put forward by those who favoured an early date for
Kanishka to prove, not only that this era was founded
by him, but that all the recorded dates of the Saka,
Pahlava, and Kushan rulers of Northern India are
referable to it. Some discoveries which I have
recently made at Taxila throw, I think, fresh light
on this question, and, though they do not settle
precisely the date of Kanishka, appear to prove that
he was not at any rate the founder of the era of 58
B.C. and could not have come to the throne until the
close of the first century A.D. or later.
One of these discoveries I made in a small chapel
immediately west of the so-called "Chir" stupa. The
chapel in question is built in a small diaper type of
masonry, which came into vogue at Taxila about the
middle of the first century A.D. and lasted for about
a hundred years. Its entrance faces the main stupa,
and near the back wall opposite this entrance, and
about a foot below the floor,I found a deposit
consisting of a steatite vessel with a silver vase
inside, and in the vase an inscribed scroll and a
small gold casket containing some minute bone relics.
A heavy stone placed over the deposit had,
unfortunately, been crushed down by the fall of the
roof and had broken both the steatite vessel and the
silver vase, but had left the gold casket uninjured
and chipped only a few fragments from the edge of the
scroll, nearly all of which I was, happily, able to
recover
p. 975
by carefully sifting and washing the earth in the
vicinity. The cleaning and transcription of the
record was a matter of exceptional difficulty, as the
scroll, which is only 6 1/4 inches long by 1 3/8
inches wide and of very thin metal, had been rolled
up tightly, face inwards, in order that it might be
enclosed in the silver vase; moreover, the metal of
which it is composed is silver alloyed with a small
percentage of copper, which had formed an
efforescence on the surface of the extremely brittle
band, with the result that I could neither unroll it
without breaking it nor subject it to the usual
chemical treatment. By the use of strong acid,
however, applied with a zinc pencil, I was able to
remove the copper efforescence and expose, one by
one, the punctured dots of the lettering on the back
of the scroll, and then, having transcribed these
with the aid of a mirror, to break off a section of
the scroll and so continue the process of cleaning
and transcription. In this way I succeeded in making
a complete copy of the record from the back of the
scroll, while the letters were yet intact. Afterwards
I cleaned in like manner and copied the face of each
of the broken sections, and was gratified to find
that my second transcript was in accurate agreement
with the first. I mention these details in order to
explain why it is impracticable to present a purely
mechanical reproduction of the record, and why the
transcript given below, which was made section by
section and necessarily without any reference to the
meaning of the record, may be regarded as
trustworthy. My reading of this inscription is as
follows:--
Text
Line 1. Sa 100.20.10.4.1.1 Ayasa Ashsdasa masasa
divase 10.4.1 isa divase pradistavita Bhagavato
dhatuo Dhurasa(?)-
1. 2. kena Dhitaphria,-putrana Bahaliena Noachae
nagare Vastavena tena ime pradistavita Bhagavato
dhatuo dhamara-
p. 976
l. 3. ie Tachhasie Tanuae Bodhisatvagahami maha-
rajasa rajatirajasa devaputrasa Khushanasa
arogadachinae
1. 4. sarva-budhana puyae prachaga-budhana puyae
arahana puyae sarvasa(tva)na puyae mata-pitu
puyae mitra-macha-nati-sa-
1. 5, dhihona puyae atmano arogadachhinae nianae
hotu a . de sa ma parichago
Translation
In the year 136 of Azes, on the 15th day of the
month of Ashadha - on this day relics of the Holy One
(Buddha) were enshrined by Dhurasakes (?), son of
Dhitaphria, a Bactrian, resident at the town of
Noacha. By him these relics of the Holy One were
enshrined in the Bodhisattva chapel at Tanua(?) in
Takhasila of the religious realm, for the bestowal
of perfect health upon the great king, king of kings,
the divine Khushana; for the veneration of all
Buddhas for the veneration of individual Buddhas; for
the veneration of the Saints; for the veneration of
all sentient beings; for the veneration of (his)
parents; for the veneration of (his) friends,
advisers, kinsmen, and associates; for the bestowal
of perfect health upon himself. May this gift be...
For Dhitaphria-putrana Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar
suggests the reading dhitastria-putrana, which, in
combination with bahaliena, he would translate
"accompanied by his daughters, wife and sons". For
the meaning of Bahaliena (="a man from Balkh") I am
indebted to Professor Rapson and Professor Konow. To
Mr. Bhandarkar I am also indebted for the suggestion
that dhamaraia = Skt. dharmarajya.
The absence of any royal titles attached to the
name of Azes is exceptional, but will hardly occasion
surprise when it is borne in mind that his era had
been in use for more than a century, and that his
dynasty had been
p. 977
supplanted by that of the Kushans. When did this era
of Azes commence? That it is one and the same as the
era in which the Gondophernes and Panjtar records are
dated will, I think, be admitted by everyone, and I
shall not therefore pause to discuss the point. If,
then, Dr. Fleet is correct in referring the dates of
the latter records to the era of 58 B.C., it follows
that it was Azes I and not Kanishka who founded that
era. That Azes I came to the throne about that date
is now, indeed, attested by the evidence of coins and
other antiquities at Taxila, which indicate that he
was reigning in the third quarter of the first
century B.C., while the probability that he may have
founded an era is also suggested by the abundance of
his coins, which denote his pre-eminence among the
Saka-Pahlava sovereigns. Notwithstanding, however,
the very strong reasons which Dr. Fleet has adduced
for referring the dates in the Gondophernes and
Panjtar records to the era of 58 B.C., the identity
of the era of Azes and the Vikrama era call hardly be
regarded as fully established, and, to my mind, it is
quite possible that the era of Azes will be found to
have commenced a few years earlier or later than 58
B.C.
Assuming that it started actually in that year,
the date given in the new inscription will fall in
the year A.D. 79; and the next important point is to
determine which of the Kushan kings is referred to as
reigning in that year. That he is identical with the
nameless Kushan ruler mentioned in the Panjtar record
of fourteen years earlier is probable; and here,
again, I think Dr. Fleet may be correct in
identifying the latter with Vima-Kadphises. On the
other hand, it is also possible that Kujula-Kadphises
may be meant. The monogram on the scroll is
characteristic of coins of Vima- Kadphises, but it is
also found on coins of his predecessor.(l)
1. Cf. Vincent Smith, Catalogue of Coins in the Indian
Museum, p. 67, Nos. 17, 22, 24.
p. 976
l. 3. ie Tachhasie Tanuae Bodhisatvagahami maha-
rajasa rajatirajasa devaputrasa Khushanasa
arogadachinae
1. 4. sarva-budhana puyae prachags-budhane puyae
arahana puyae sarvasa(tva)na puyae mata-pitu
puyae mitra-macha-nati-sa-
1. 5, dhihona puyae atmano arogadachhinae nianae
hotu a . de se ma parichago
Translation
In the year 136 of Azes, on the 15th day of the
month of Ashadha - on this day relics of the Holy One
(Buddha) were enshrined by Dhurasakes (?), son of
Dhitaphria, a Bactrian, resident at the town of
Noacha. By him these relics of the Holy One were
enshrined in the Bodhisattva chapel at Tanua(?) in
Takhassila of the religious realm, for the bestowal
of perfect health upon the great king, king of kings,
the divine Khushana; for the veneration of all
Buddhas for the veneration of individual Buddhas; for
the veneration of the Saints; for the veneration of
all sentient beings; for the veneration of (his)
parents; for the veneration of (his) friends,
advisers, kinsmen, and associates; for the bestowal
of perfect health upon himself. May this gift be...
For Dhitaphria-putrana Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar
suggests the reading dhitastria-putrana, which, in
combination with bahaliena, he would translate
"accompanied by his daughters, wife and sons". For
the meaning of Bahaliena (="a man from Balkh") I am
indebted to Professor Rapson and Professor Konow. To
Mr. Bhandarkar I am also indebted for the suggestion
that dhamaraia = Skt. dharmarajya.
The absence of any royal titles attached to the
name of Azes is exceptional, but will hardly occasion
surprise when it is borne in mind that his era had
been in use for more than a century, and that his
dynasty had been
p. 977
supplanted by that of the Kushans. When did this era
of Azes commence? That it is one and the same as the
era in which the Gondophernes and Panjtar records are
dated will, I think, be admitted by everyone, and I
shall not therefore pause to discuss the point. If,
then, Dr. Fleet is correct in referring the dates of
the latter records to the era of 58 B.C., it follows
that it was Azes I and not Kanishka who founded that
era. That Azes I came to the throne about that date
is now, indeed, attested by the evidence of coins and
other antiquities at Taxila, which indicate that he
was reigning in the third quarter of the first
century B.C., while the probability that he may have
founded an era is also suggested by the abundance of
his coins, which denote his pre-eminence among the
Saka-Pahlava sovereigns. Notwithstanding, however,
the very strong reasons which Dr. Fleet has adduced
for referring the dates in the Gondophernes and
Panjtar records to the era of 58 B.C., the identity
of the era of Azes and the Vikrama era can hardly be
regarded as fully established, and, to my mind, it is
quite possible that the era of Azes will be found to
have commenced a few years earlier or later than 58
B.C.
Assuming that it started actually in that year,
the date given in the new inscription will fall in
the year A.D. 79; and the next important point is to
determine which of the Kushan kings is referred to as
reigning in that year. That he is identical with the
nameless Kushan ruler mentioned in the Panjtar record
of fourteen years earlier is probable; and here,
again, I think Dr. Fleet may be correct in
identifying the latter with Vima-Kadphises. On the
other hand, it is also possible that Kujula-Kadphises
may be meant. The monogram on the scroll is
characteristic of coins of Vima- Kadphises, but it is
also found on coins of his predecessor.(l)
1. Cf. Vincent Smith, Catalogue of Coins in the Indian
Museum, p. 67, Nos. 17, 22, 24.
p. 978
Again, the title maharajasa rajatirajasa also
suggests Vima-Kadphises; indeed, it was stated by
several speakers during the discussion on the date of
Kanishka that Kujula-Kadphises was only a petty local
chief (yavuga jabgou), never "a king of kings", like
his successor. But this assertion is erroneous. On
some of his coins Kujula- Kadphises styles himself
maharaja rajadirajasa, (1) and, according to
Cunningham, devaputrasa also.(2) That he ruled,
moreover, at Taxila, and consequently over the
north-west of the Punjab and Frontier generally, is
abundantly clear from his coins, which are found
there in larger numbers than those of any other kings
except Azes I and Azes II.(3) Other considerations,
too, favour the identification with Kujula- rather
than Vima- Kadphises. For, in the first place, it
would be natural for the first emperor of the dynasty
to be styled "the Kushan Emperor" without any further
appellation, while it would be equally natural for
his successors to be distinguished from him by the
addition of their individual names. Secondly, the
stratification of coins at Taxila show that
Kujula-Kadphises succeeded the Pahlava kings there,
and consequently he can hardly have conquered the
country before circa A.D. 50; and inasmuch as his
coins betoken a fairly long reign there, and he is
known from other sources to have lived to a great
age, he may well have been ruling in the 122nd and
136th years of the era of Azes, i.e., approximately,
in A.D. 65 and 79. For these reasons it would, in my
opinion, be unsafe at present to regard as certain
the identity of the emperor referred to in this
record with Vima-Kadphises, notwithstanding other
evidence which
1. Cf. R. B. Whitehead, Catalogue of Coins in the
Punjab Museum, Lahore, vol. i, p. 180, Nos. 20, 22.
2. Cf. Num. Chron., vol. xii, p. 66, 1892.
3. Thus, within the walls of Sir-kap alone I estimate
from my finds up to date that there are not less
than 18.000 of his coins hidden within the soil.
P. 979
undoubtedly exists for assigning an earlier date to
Kujula-Kadphises.
From the new discoveries at Taxila, coupled with
already known facts, the succession of the Saka,
Pahlava, and Kushan rulers in this part of India
appears to have been as follows:
Maues. Kujula-Kadphises and
Azes I. Hermaeus.
Azilises. Vima-Kadphises
Azes II Aspavarma (Soter megas).
Gondophernes Strategos. Kanishka.
Abdagases, Sasan, Sapedanes, Huvishka.
Vasudeva.
The coins of Maues are relatively few, and this
bears out the theory that Maues rose to power in
Arachosia and did not extend his sway over Taxila
until relatively late in his reign. Rare, too, are
the coins of Azilises, who seems to have had a short
reign and may have been represented at Taxila by
local governors.
The existence of Azes II, which was first
postulated by Mr. Vincent Smith, is not generally
admitted by other numismatists; but the following
facts appear to me strongly to support Mr. Smith's
view: (1) The coins which he assigns to Azes II are
found generally nearer the surface than those of Azes
I. (2) Aspavarma appears to have been strategos in
the reign of Gondophernes(1) as well as in that of
Azes, and it is impossible that this Azes can be Azes
I, who came to the throne seventy-eight years before
Gondophernes. (3) Coins of Azes II (with Aspavarma)
are found in company with coins of Gondophernes.(2)
After the death of Gondophernes his empire was
split up into smaller principalities, and it was
then that Hermaeus and Kadphises I appear to have
made their successful invasion
1. Cf. R. B. Whitehead, Catalogue of Coins in the
Punjab Museum, Lahore, vol. i, p.150, Nos. 35-8.
2. e.g. twenty-three coins of Gondophernes (with Sasan)
in company with four of Azes II (with Aspavarma).
p. 980
of Gandhara and Taxila. One of these
principalities was ruled by Abdagases, another by
Orthagnes, and others by princes whose coins I have
now recovered for the first time at Taxila. Among
them were Sasan, Sapedanes, and Satavastra(?). Coins
of Gondophernes with the legend Sasasa have long been
familiar to numismatists, and it has been a matter of
dispute whether this word contained the name of a
ruler or was merely an unexplained epithet of
Gondophernes. But a new type of silver coin from
Taxila, bearing on the obverse the legend Maharajasa
Aspabhataputrasa(1) tratarasa Sasasa, seems to
indicate that General Cunningham was right in
interpreting it as the name of a ruler. I suggest
that Sasan may have been a Viceroy of Gondophernes
during the lifetime of the latter, and have made
himself maharaja of his province on Gondophernes'
death. The legends on the other coins referred to
read respectively: maharajasa rajarajasa tratarasa
dhramiasa Sapedanasa, (2) and maharajasa
Satavastrasa.(3) The corrupt legends on the obverse
are not clear,(4) but the symbol appears on all of
them, and in other respects the coins are closely
allied to those of Gondophernes. The titles of these
potentates imply that they were independent at the
time when these coins were struck; but there is
nothing to prove that any of them was ruling in
Taxila. Probably they were ruling in other parts of
the country when Kujula-Kadphises and Hermaeus had
already taken possession of Taxila. This supposition
is supported by the fact that no copper coins of
these later Pahlava princes have yet been found
there,
1. Aspabhataputrasa may perhaps be read as Aspabhra-
taputrasa, in which case Sasan may have been a
nephew of Aspavarman.
2. The lower half of the second aksara of this name
is somewhat doubtful. Perhaps it may be
Sarpedanasa.
3. The reading Satavastrasa is clear, but it is
difficult to believe that this is the name of a
king.
4. On one of the coins of Sapedanes or Sarpedanes the
Greek letters . . CAPHN . . . are visible.
p. 981
and that the silver pieces alluded to above were all
found together in one jar(1) in a stratum which has
yielded many copper coins of Hermaeus and
Kujula-Kadphises. In the absence of any silver
mintage of Hermaes or Kadphises it is not, of course,
surprising that silver coins should have found their
way to Taxila from neighbouring Pahlava.
principalities. If any of these princes succeeded
Gondo phernes at Taxila and reigned for any length of
time there, then the conquest of Kujula-Kadphises and
Hermaeus can hardly have taken place before about
A.D. 60, in which case there will be still more
reason for identifying the former with the Kushan
monarch referred to in the Panjtar record.
Among the coins of Hermaeus and Kujula-Kadphises
are a certain number struck in the name of Hermaeus
alone,(2) but the vast majority are those of Hermaeus
and Kadphises or of Kadphises alone, nor does there
seem to be sufficient reason for supposing that
Taxila was ever included within the kingdom of
Hermaeus, prior to the conquest of the latter by
Gondophernes. On the contrary there are good grounds
for believing that Azes II was succeeded directly by
Gondophernes, who afterwards proceeded to annex the
Kabul kingdom of Hermaeus. Hermaeus, we may assume,
formed an alliance with Kujula-Kadphises, recovered
his own lost dominions, and after the death of
Gondophernes took advantage of the break-up of the
great Pahlava kingdom to invade Gandhara and
Taxila.(3)
1. With them were a figure of a winged Aphrodite of
gold repousse, a number of intaglio gems engraved
with figures of Eros, Artemis, etc., and other
pieces of gold jewellery.
2. Of two types, viz. B.M. Cat., pls. xv, 6, and
xxxii, 8.
3. The prevalent view taken by historians and
numismatists is that
Kadphises I conquered Hermaeus circa A.D. 20 or even
earlier (cf. Vincent Smith, The Early History of
India, 3rd ed., 1914, p. 236; Rapson, Indian Coins,
p. 16, par. 65). In that case Kadphises I must have
been driven back from Taxila and Kabul by
Gondophernes. I find nothing to support this
supposition.
p. 982
Of the nameless king, Soter Megas, all that can
be said at present is that his coins are not found in
Sir-kap; and, as they are common enough on the sites
round about, it may be inferred that he was certainly
later than Kujula- Kadphises, but how much later yet
remains to be seen.
To revert, however, to Kanishka. We have seen
that he was not the founder of the era commencing in
58 B.C., or thereabouts, and that there is no place
for him and his immediate successors among the Saka
and Pahlava kings, who were ruling at Taxila in the
first centuries before and after Christ. I turn now
to more positive evidence regarding his date. That he
followed and did not precede the two Kadphises is
abundantly clear from my excavations both in the city
of Sir-kap and at the Chir stupa.
Sir-kap was built during the Greek domination
and, apparently, remained in occupation as a city
until the reign of Vima-Kadphises. In it I have now
cleared a reasonably representative area, measuring
some 3 3/4 acres, and including part of a main
street, several side streets, and a number of large
edifices. I have unearthed buildings of the Greek,
Saka, Pahlava, and Kushan epochs, and I have
discovered, buried in small hoards beneath their
floors or dropped singly in the chambers. alleys, and
roads, coins of the following kings:--
Greek Saka and Pahlava
1. Agathocles 11. Maues.
2. Lysias. 12. Vonones (with Spalahora).
3. Eucratides. 13. Azes I.
4. Antialcidas. 14. Azilises.
5. Apollodotus. 15. AzesII.
6. Heliocles. 16. Gondophernes.
7. Hippostratus. 17. Abdagases.
8. Philoxenus. 18. Sasan.
9. Telephus. 19. Sapedanes.
10. Hermaeus. 20. Satavastra(?).
Kushan
21. Kujula-Kadphises.
22. Vima-Kadphises.
p. 983
Yet I have not come across a single coin of
Kanishka, Huvishka, or Vasudeva. How can this entire
absence of their coins be explained, except on the
hypothesis that these three emperors came later than
Vima-Kadphises, during whose reign the city appears
to have been deserted --particularly when it is
remembered that their coins remained in circulation
long after their deaths?
At the Chir stupa, on the other hand, I have
brought to light a series of buiidings covering a
much longer period-- namely, from the middle of the
first century B.C. to the fourth or fifth century
A.D. These buildings are characterized by four clear
and distinct types of masonry. Those in the lowest
stratum are of rubble, often faced with finely cut
kanjur stone; built over them are structures of small
"diaper" masonry; above these, again, are buildings
of a larger and more massive type of "diaper"; and
uppermost of all come stupas and chapels of
semi-ashlar, semi-diaper masonry. Now, coins of the
Saka and Pahlava kings are found associated with the
first of these four classes, and coins of the two
Kadphises are found in buildings of the second class;
but not a single coin of Kanishka, Huvishka, or
Vasudeva has been found in any building earlier than
those of the third class. Nor is this evidence
derived only from coins found in the debris of these
buildings. In one case the relics in a small stupa
associated with a building of the third class, and
certainly not older than the second century A.D.,
were accompanied by coins of Huvishka and Vasudeva
only.
Thus in Sir-kap we have, represented by their
coins, a succession of rulers from the second century
B.C. until the latter part of the first century A.D.,
but not a trace among them of Kanishka, Huvishka, or
Vasudeva; and at the Chir stupa we have a succession
of Saka, and Pahlava kings followed by the two
Kadphises, with Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vasudeva
coming later.
And if we look at other monuments associated with
p. 984
Kanishka and Huvishka, we are forced to the same
conclusion regarding their date. Thus the original
masonry of the Kanishka Stupa at Peshawar is of a
type which at Taxila, at any rate, was unknown in the
Saka-Pahlava period, but is paralleled there in
buildings of the second century A.D. True, Peshawar
is at some distance from Taxila, and it is possible,
though not likely, that a local style may have been
independently evolved there. But at Manikyala, which
is within 40 miles of Taxila, no such explanation
will avail. There the great stupa erected during
Huvishka's reign is similar in all its details--in
its dwarfed pilasters, degenerate Corinthian
capitals, bevelled torus mouldings, notched Indian
brackets, and the like(1) -- to monuments of the
second and third centuries A.D. at Taxila, but
markedly different from those of the first century
B.C.
In concluding this brief note let me add that the
new information which I have gleaned about the
Saka-Pahlava rulers, coupled with the opening words
of the inscription given above, have suggested to me
a more satisfactory solution of the difficulties
connected with the Patika copper-plate, King Moga,
and the chronology of the local Satraps of Mathura.
The most orthodox view, at present, is to
identify the King Moga referred to in the Patika
copper-plate with King Moa (= Maues) of the coins
(circa 120 B.C., according to the generally accepted
chronology), to regard Patika as a contemporary of
Moga, and to place Rajuvula and Sodasa slightly
later. On the other hand, Dr. Fleet
1. Cf. Cunningham, ASR., vol. v, pl. xxiv, which,
however, is not entirely accurate. Fergusson's
woodcut (ed. 1910, p. 98, fig. 27) is a mere
travesty of the original. The attribution of this
monument, as itment, as it now stands, to the
eighth century A.D. or thereabouts is one of the
most amazing blunders ever made by Fergusson, as
amazing as his attribution of the Dhamekh stupa at
Sarnath to the eleventh century. The style of the
architectural decorations around the plinth and
base of the super- structure is precisely that
which prevailed at Taxila in the second century
A.D., but was completely transformed during the
three succeeding centuries.
p. 985
differentiates between King Moa of the coins and Moga
of the copper-plate, as well as between Patika of the
Taxila plate and Patika of the Mathura lion-capital;
he refers the year 78 of the Taxila inscription, as
well as the year 72 of the Amohini record of Sodasa's
reign, to the Vikrama era of 58 B.C.; and he places
Rajuvula and Sodasa, together with King Moga and
Patika, in the early part of the first century A.D.
Neither of these solutions can be considered
satisfactory: the first, because it ignores the fact
that the style of the sculptures of Sodasa's reign at
Mathura entirely precludes their being ascribed to so
early a date as the second quarter of the first
century B.C.; the second, because there is no reason
for supposing that there was another Patika, and
because it is prima facie improbable that King Moga
was ruling in the first century A.D., in the same
year as Gondophernes.
Now, let us consider what these three records-the
Patika copper-plate, the Mathura lion-capital, and
the Amohini ayagapata slab--have to tell us regarding
the succession of these Satraps. From the first we
learn that Patika was not yet invested with satrapal
powers in the year 78, when his father, the Satrap
Liaka-Kusulaka, was still alive. From the Mathura
lion-capital we learn that, at the time it was
inscribed, Patika had become "Great Satrap", that
Rajuvula was also a "Great Satrap", and his son
Sodasa only "Satrap". And from the Amohini slab we
learn that in the year 72, in which it is dated,
Sodasa had become "Great Satrap" in succession to his
father Rajuvula. Thus we have the following order of
succession indicated in these records:---
Liaka-Kusulaka
|
Patika -- approximately contemporary with -- Rajuvula
_______|_______
| |
Arta = daughter Sodasa
Kharahostes(1)
1. See Fleet, JRAS, October, 1913, p. 1009.
p. 986
From this it follows that if Liaka-Kusulaka was
Satrap in the year 78 of the era of 58 B.C., Sodasa
could not have been Great Satrap in the year 72 of
the same era. In older to get over this difficulty
Dr. Fleet, as stated above, assumes the existence of
two Patikas. But is it necessary to refer these dates
to one and the same era, or to refer the year 78 of
the Patika plate to an unspecified era? I hold that
it is not. The new Taxila inscription proves that the
year 136 of that record is dated, not in an
unspecified era and during the reign of Azes, but in
the era founded by Azes himself; and, if we compare
this inscription with the Patika plate, we find that
the words maharayasa mahamtasa Mogasa occupy the same
position as the word Ayasa in the new record. Let us
see, therefore, what the result will be if we refer
the year 78 of the Patika plate to the reign of Maues
and the year 72 of the Amohini slab to the era of
Azes.
According to the numismatic and other evidence
from Taxila, Maues or Moa immediately preceded Azes,
and, as he must have enjoyed a fairly long reign, I
place his accession about 95 B.C. The year 78 of his
reign, therefore, when Liaka-Kusulaka was Satrap,
will fall about 17 B.C. The reigns of Patika and
Rajuvula we shall place roughly between 10 B.C. and
A.D. 10, that of Sodasa after A.D. 10 (the year 72 of
the Amohini record falling in A.D. 15), and that of
Kharahostes, say, A.D. 30-45. This chronology seems
to me to accord satisfactorily with the numismatic
evidence and all else that we know about the lineage
of these Satraps.