Taxila Inscription of the Year 136

Taxila Inscription of the year 136

BY RAMAPRASAD CHANDA OIR JOHN" MARSHALL'S interpretation of ayasa in the Taxila silver scroll inscription of the year 136 as " of Azes " has been the subject of adverse criticism by some of the most eminent antiquarians since the publication of the record in 1914. The latest is by Professor Sten Konow in the Epigraphia Indica, xiv, p. 286. Professor Konow revives two of the objections to Sir John's explanation : (1) "the word (ayasa) could hardly be the name of a king, because no royal title is used " ; (2) " if ayasa were really the name of a king, it would place the inscription in the reign of this king, who would then most likely have to be identified with the Khushana mentioned in 1. 3. " I hope to show in this note that these objections are not a§ insuperable as they are supposed to be. (1) Professor Konow says : " The absence of every royal designation is so extraordinary that I think we must abandon Sir John's explanation of the word ayasa altogether." If the assumption on which the second objection is based were correct, if the explanation of ayasa in the sense of "of Azes " would place the inscription in the reign of Azes himself, the absence of the royal designation could justify the total rejection of Sir John's explanation. But if ayasa may mean " of (the era of) Azes " and not " (during the reign) of Azes ", why should the omission of royal designation in the year 136 of the era of Azes, so long after his death, and probably some time after the destruction of the Saka-Parthian dynasty by the Kushans, be considered " so extraordinary " ? In the inscriptions dated in the Gupta and Saka eras the usual practice, of course, is the addition of a royal title with the terms Gupta and Saka. But the omission of such title is not also uncommon (see Kielhorn's Northern List, appended to

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. INSEAD, on 25 May 2018 at 16:05:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00148191 320 TAXILA INSCRIPTION OF THE YEAR 136

Ep. Ind., v, and Southern List, appended to Ep. Ind., viij and also inscriptions published after the compilation of the Lists). It may be argued that the terms Gupta and 6aka as applied to the eras denote dynasties and not individual kings, and the absence of a royal title with dynastic names cannot be considered as serious an omission as the absence of such title with the names of individual kings. But from epigraphic records we know of an Indian era connected with the name of a real king in the mention of which the royal designation is omitted. (1) Bodh-Gaya inscription of Asokachalla : srlmal', = Laksmanasenasy = atita rajye sam 51 Bkddra dine 29 (Ep. Ind., xii, p. 29). (2) Bodh-Gaya inscription of the time of Asokachalla : srlmal = Lalcsmanasenadeva- •padatiam = at.ita-rajye sam 74 VaiSakha-vadi 12 Gurau 11 (Ep. Ind., xii, p. 30). (3) Janibigha inscription of Jayasena : Lakvmatiasenasy = atlta-rdjye sam 83 Karttikasudi 15 (Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Eesearch Society, 1918, p. 279). I propose to translate No. 3 as, " After the extinction of the dominion of Laksmanasena, (in) the year 83, on the 15th day of the bright half of Karttika."J When the Malava 1 Mr. Panday reads "rdjya. But the sign of e-kara before jy is clear on the heliozincograph. Mr. Panday's translation, " (on) the 15th day of the bright half of Karttika, LakshmanasSna samvat 83 expired" (JBORS. 1918, p. 280), is wrong ; atlta goes with rajye and nob with farhvat. Kielhorn, on the assumption that the Laksmanasena-sarhvat began with the beginning of the reign of Laksmanasena in A.D. 1119, translates No. 2 as "on the 12th of the dark half of Vaisakha of the year 74 since the (commencement of the) reign, (now) passed, of the illustrious Lakshmanasenadeva, on a Thursday" {Ind. Ant. xix, p. 2). But in his synchronistic table for Northern India, A.D. 400-1400 (appended to Ep. Ind. viii), column 7, Kielhorn shows Ballalasena, father of Laksmanasena, reigning in A.D. 1169, evidently in accordance with the date of the compilation of the Danasdgara of Ballalasena as given in the manuscripts of that work (Eggeling's Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the India Office Library, p. 545). Sir R. G. Bhandarkar notices a manuscript of the Adbhutasdgara which, according to the introductory stanzas of the work, was begun by Ballalasena in Saka year 1090 = A.D. 1168, and was finished after his death by his son Laksmanasena {Report on the Search for Sanskrit Manuscripts during 1887-88 and 1890-91, p. lxxxv). In the printed edition of the Adbhuta- sdgara (Benares, 1905) the date of the commencement of the work is-

(or Krtya) and Saka eras came to be known after Vikramaditya and S'alivahana respectively who were believed to be real Icings, the royal title was not always added to the names of these kings in recording dates (Kielhorn's Northern List, Nos. 61, 72, etc., Southern List, Nos. 370, 379, etc.). So the absence of the royal designation before ayasa cannot necessarily vitiate Sir John Marshall's explanation. (2) In answer to the second objection Sir John Marshall has already drawn attention to the significant fact, that in the Taxila inscription of the year 136, as in the Taxila plate of Patika of the year 78, " the year of the era in which they are dated comes first, then the name of the king, and lastly the month and day," whereas in other inscriptions the name of the king comes first, and then the year and the month (JRAS. 1915, p. 195). Though Professor Konow admits, " I do not know of any other old inscription where we find a similar addition between the mention of the year and the month," he does not recognize the necessity of explaining the date portion of these two epigraphs in a different way, but adds, " If, however, Ayasa is the name of a ruler, the inscription must, aa urged by Messrs. Thomas and Fleet, be dated during the reign of the King." No explanation of this " must" is either expressed or implied, except the analogy of the prevailing explanation of the date portion of the Taxila plate of Patika. It runs :— Samvatsaraye athasatatitamae 20 20 20 10 4 4 Maharayasa Mahamtasa Mogasa, " in the seventy-eighth year 78, (during the reign) of the Maharaja the great Moga " (Konow). In his article on the Ara inscription of Kaniska II, Professor Konow has collected in a very convenient form the date

given as Saka year 1089 = A.D. 1167 (p. 4), and on p. 203 it is stated that the first year of the reign of Ballalasena fell in the Saka year 1082=t A.D. 1160. So the tradition recorded by Abul Fazl in his Akbarnama and relied on by Keilhorn that the era of Laksmanasena is counted from that king's accession in A.D. 1119 is without historical basis, and we need not twist the meaning of expressions like Laksmanasenasy = dtita-rajye sarii[vat] in the light of that tradition.

portions of all the dated inscriptions of the Saka-Parthian and Kushan periods (Ep. Ind., xiv, pp. 135-139). To this list may be added Nos. 906, 922, 962, 963, 965, 964a (1452) of Liider's List of Brdhmi Inscriptions. It will be seen from the extracts in these lists that the usual way of dating is, first the name of the king with royal titles, then the year of the unspecified era, then the month and the day. There are only four exceptions to this rule. Two of these are the two Taxila inscriptions under consideration, and the two others are the Manikiala stone inscription and the Panjtar inscription. All the authorities — Senart, Liiders, Pargiter—who have recently dealt with the former record, hold very divergent views regarding the reading of the date portion. So it is not yet possible to arrive at any definite conclusion regarding the meaning of the passage that may command general acceptance. The date of the Panjtar inscription runs thus :— Sam 1100 201 lSravanasa masasa di pradhame 1 Maharayasa Gusariasa rajami, " anno 122, on the first, 1, day of the month Sravana, during the reign of the Maharaja the Gushana." Here the addition of rajami, " during the reign," renders the meaning clear. In the Gupta period the inscriptions are also dated on the same plan ; first the name of the reigning king, then the year of the Gupta era (not specified), then the month and day. For examples see Kielhorn's Northern List, Nos. 437, 439, 440, 442, 447, 449, 450. Deviation from this rule is found in one instance (excluding inscriptions the date of which is embodied in verse),1 in the Mankuwar Buddhist

1 Kielhorn's Northern List, No. 454, and the two Sarnath image inscriptions of the time of iKumara Gupta (G.E. 154) and Budhagupta (G.E. 157). See Report of the Superintendent of Hindu and Buddhist Monuments, Northern Circle, for 1914-15, pp. 6-7. In the two latter records the name of the era is specified as Guptdnam, ". of the Guptas." In Kielhorn's No. 454 the wording bhupatau cha Budhagupte, "while Budhagupta is the reigning king," leaves no room for doubt about the sense.

image inscription (Kielhorn's Northern List, No. 443), the date of which is thus recorded :— Samvat 100 20 9 Mahdrdja-8ri-Kumdraguptasya rdjye Jyeshthamdsa-di 10 8, " the year 129, during the reign of Maharaja Sii-Kumaragupta, the month of Jyeshtha, day 18." Here also rdjye, the Sanskrit equivalent of rajami of the Panjtar inscription, renders the meaning clear. In this connexion the main point to be noted is, while the addition of rajami (rdjye) is thought necessary when the name of the reigning king is inserted between the year (of the unspecified era) and the month, no such addition is ever made when the reigning king is named first and the year next. Therefore, in the absence of rajami in the date portion of .the Taxila plate of Patika and of the inscription of the year 136, we are not justified in assenting to the following equations : (1) Sariivatasaraye athasatatimae 78 Maharayasct Mahamtasa Mogasa Pa[nemasa] masasa divase pamchame 5 equals Mahara- yasa Mahamtasa Mogasa samvatsarae athasatatimae 78 Panemasa masasa divase pamchame 5. (2) Sam 136 Ayasa Ashadasa divase 15 equals Ayasa sam 136 Ashadasa divase 15. The acceptance of No. 1 makes Moga nearly a contemporary of the Mahaksatrapa Rajuvula and his son Sodasa (Sudasa) as Ksatrapa, for the Mahaksatrapa Kusulaka Padika of the Mathura Lion Capital inscription G is no other than Patika, son of the Ksatrapa Liaka Kusulaka, of the Taxila plate of the year 78. About the date of Sodasa, Professor Konow writes : " I think we are forced to the conclusion that Sodasa dated his inscription in the Vikrama era " (Ep. Tnd., xiv, p. 141). So the year 72 during the reign of Sodasa as Mahaksatrapa = A.D. 15. This is in agreement with the views of Sir John Marshall. It is not reasonable to assume a distance much longer than 25 to 30 years between Patika's plate of the year 78 and the Mathura inscription of the year 72 of the time of Sodasa (Liiders' List, No. 59). So if the year 78 of the Taxila plate is placed during the reign of Moga, we bring down this Saka king who is rightly identified with

Moa or Maues of the coins to about B.C. 15. But the very fine workmanship of the coins of Maues renders such a view impossible. It is therefore more reasonable to recognize the year 78 of the plate of Patika as a year of the era of Moga or Maues, and, on its analogy, the year 136 of the silver scroll inscription as a year of the era of Azes. My esteemed friend Mr. Akshay Kumar Maitra, of the Varendra Research Society of Rajshahi, suggests that, if ayasa is not a proper name, then, on the analogy of the Wardak Vase inscription of the year 51, the year 136 should be treated as a year of the Kushan era of Kaniska. The Wardak Vase inscription opens with the date " In the year 51, on the day 15 (of the first half ?) of the month of Artemisios " ; then follows an account of the deposit of the relic, followed by benediction on King Hoveska (Ep. Ind., xi, pp. 210-11). Similarly, in the Taxila inscription of the year 136 the date and the account of the deposit of the relic is followed by benediction on an unnamed Kushan (Khushana) king. The only new element in this latter record is the word ayasa between the mention of the year and the month. If ayasa is explained away as an adjective qualifying Jshadhasa, we have to recognize the year 136 as a year of the Kushan era. But I do not think that any, scholar will subscribe to the view that the Taxila silver scroll was engraved 38 years after the last known date (year 98) of the reign of Vasudeva, whose earliest known date is the year 74.