620 Note on some Sculptures found in Peshawar. [No. 7. 



Now this tablet is dated in the twelfth year of its author's reign, 

 which by this calculation would place his accession, at from 283 to 

 267 B. C. 



It has been already seen that the earliest possible date of Asoka's 

 accession (4 years before his conversion at the shortest calculation) 

 is 291 B. C. Professor Wilson has shown that it cannot be brought 

 down later than 266 B. C. 



The medium between the two first dates would give B. C. 275, 

 that between the two last 278 B. C, or a little more as the date of 

 accession. 



The date of the 12th year would thus be 266 or 263 B. C, both 

 dates making the Antiochus mentioned Antiochus Soter, whose connec- 

 tion with India, with Magas and Antigonus renders the attribution in 

 every way most probable. 



To my knowledge there remains but one further difficulty in identi- 

 fying Asoka as the author of the pillar edicts. 



This objection refers to the non-employment, by the author of the 

 pillar edicts, of the name of " Asoka" or " Dharma Asoka" in designat- 

 ing himself. 



But to this it may be replied that neither of these was the king's 

 original name, nor did the term "Asoka" evoke any agreeable recollec- 

 tion ; in fact so far from being a title of honor it was a nickname of 

 reproach,* which the Buddhists after the king's conversion modified 

 — being unable to obliterate it — into " Dharma Asoka," as is noticed 

 by Prinsep in the Society's Journal for September 1837, p. 794. 



It is therefore not to be expected that the king should himself per- 

 petuate the use of the opprobrious epithet, and it is, indeed, far more 

 consistent with probability that he should use, in a religious work, a title 

 like " Piyadasi" with reference to his own sanctity. To sum up — I 

 trust I have shown the probability that the edicts belong to a certain 

 period of time, and that not an extended one. 



That there is strong evidence that their author was Asoka himself. 



Thirdly, that the sculptures described, belong to a period which 

 includes within its limits that to which the edicts may be ascribed. 



And lastly, that the sculptures possess characters which connect 

 them closely with the peculiar state of manners and religion described 

 * On account of the murder of his brothers. 



