1852.] Note on some Sculptures found in Peshawar. 615 



Asoka's xz\gn previous to his conversion, and we have 287 B. C. as the 

 earliest possible date for the triumph of Buddhism Trans-Indus. 



But even this date is probably far too early. No one authority 

 assigns a shorter period for the united reigns of Chandra Gupta and 

 his son than 49 years, which would bring down Asoka's conver- 

 sion to 271 B. C. 



For these reasons I conclude that the earliest possible period to 

 which these figures can be assigned is 287 B. C. and the latest 200 

 B. C, while there is every probability that the age of their execution 

 was between 271 and 225 B. C, a period of only 46 years. 



I confess that I feel myself inclined to assign the erection of Jamal 

 Giri to the author of the Kapur di Giri edict, and to assign both to the 

 reign of the great Asoka, and I trust that the confirmatory evidence 

 which I deduce from the mixed character of the religion indicated by 

 the sculpture, may be my excuse for offering a few remarks on this 

 well-debated subject ; premising that I do so only conjecturally for the 

 consideration of the Society, and not with any confidence as to their 

 correctness. 



As I have said, the mixed character of the sculptures, though Bud- 

 dhist indications preponderate, is of itself evidence of the existence of a 

 Buddhism greatly differing from the orthodox practice of Buddhist 

 nations of the present day. 



That such was the case when the Kapur di Giri inscription and its 

 fellows were promulgated, we might gather from internal evidence, if it 

 were not expressly stated by the inscriptions themselves. 



Not only the inscriptions lament the imperfection of moral and 

 religious practices among the Trans-Indus nations, but the author 

 specially notices the abrogation of an edict issued by himself as 

 " obstructive to the progress of the faith." 



It has been inferred that the issue of the abrogated edict must have 

 preceded the monarch's conversion, and that therefore as some of the 

 edicts are of earlier and some of later date, that the religion they pro- 

 mulgate must be different, and certainly that the earlier edicts cannot 

 have recommended Buddhism, and it has even been further argued 

 that as there is no perceptible difference in the tenets enumerated by 

 the earlier and later edicts that therefore neither can be Buddhist. 



But these assumptions seem scarcely warranted. 



