1852.] Note on some Sculptures found in Peshaioar. 619 



than that he should have gained it by personal intercourse at a later 

 period when, during the hurried expedition of Antiochus the Great, 

 Greek and Indian were placed for a few short weeks in actual contact, 

 but subsequently to which period and for many years before it the 

 general communication between Greece and India must have been 

 infinitely more interrupted than before the Bactrianand Parthian revolts 

 in 255 and 256 B. C. 



The probability hence deduced that Antiochus Soter or Antiochus 

 Theos was the monarch meant is still further strengthend by another 

 circumstance. 



The author of the pillar edict, an Indian monarch, records that he 

 was in possession of the Trans-Indus provinces of Kamboja, Gandhara, 

 &c, and, as we have seen before, there is every probability that these 

 had been re-conquered by the Greek kings of Bactria, previous to 

 Euthydemus, and therefore considerably antecedent to the advent of 

 Antiochus the Great. 



The mention therefore of either the first or second Antiochus, {not 

 incompatible with facts,) with that of Ptolemy Philadelphus, is scarcely 

 less to be expected, for his intercourse with India is recorded to have 

 been unusually great. 



The name of Magas is unmistakeable, and too peculiar to be con- 

 founded with that of any contemporary monarch, and though of com- 

 parative insignificance, its mention may be accounted for, by the 

 connection of Magas with the Syrian kings, he having married the 

 daughter of the first Antiochus. Similarly the introduction of the 

 name of Antigonus Gonatus may be owing to his marriage with the 

 sister of the same Antiochus. 



The name of Alexander of Epirus seems more out of place ; but, 

 though a king of small historical celebrity, he was a warlike and turbu- 

 lent prince, whose proceedings doubtless attracted much of the atten- 

 tion, and influenced many of the movements, of his contemporaries, and 

 was not therefore unlikely to be noticed in a record of the monarchs 

 of his time. 



If therefore we assume that the above princes were those intended 

 by the names in the edicts, and allowing a reasonable time for the 

 transmission of news from the west to the east, say one year, it follows 

 that the particular edict in which they stand named must have been 

 promulgated between 271 B. C, and 255 B. C. 



4 K 



