226 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [June, 191 4.J 



Ptolemy, mentions Siro Polemaios (King Pulumayi) in the 

 same way as he does Chashtana. Ptolemy's account must 

 therefore have been written after the accession of that prince. 

 This took place some years after a.d. 131 (V. Smith gives the 

 date 138, Rapson gives the date 131 + x, where x may be 

 taken to be any number less than 10), whereas Chashtana must 

 have ceased to reign some time before the year 130, »s we find his 

 grandson ruling in that year. Chashtana therefore cannot have 

 been living at the time when Ptolemy wrote his book. It follows 

 further from this deduction that it is not legitimate to take 

 Ptolemy to mean that the kings whom he associated with some 

 distinguished cities were necessarily his contemporaries. The 

 only cer ain and legitimate conclusions from Ptolemy's state- 

 ment regarding Chashtana are : 



(1) That Chashtana must have flourished before and not 

 after the death of Ptolemy, which event probably took some 

 years after a.d. 161. 



(2) That he was a famous king of Ujjayini, with the 

 name of which city his name was very familiarly associated. 



Both these conditions are satisfied by our assumption that 



he conquered Ujjayini and founded a royal line there about 

 a.d. 7S 



Thus we see that the historical evidence corroborates the 

 Jaina tradition that 135 years after Vikrama the Sakas again 

 conquered Ujjayini ; we need only add c under the leadership 

 of Chashtana." 



