1889.] on the Civilization of Ancient India. 145 



" Sam 274 emborasmasa masasa mi panclwmi 5 — " The record, as 

 it stands, consists of a date, and nothing more. The month is stated to 

 bo intercalary, but is not further named. The numerals are distinct, 

 and their interpretation seems to be free from doubt. The notation is 

 clumsy, and may be rendered thus in Roman numerals, II C XX XX 

 XX X IV, = 274. 



The main question suggested by this very scanty record is that of 

 the identity of the era referred to. 



The locality in which the inscription was found suggests that the 

 date might be expressed either in the era of Gondophares, as used in 

 the Takht-i-Bahi inscription, or the era of the great king Moga referred 

 to in the Taxila record of Liako Kusulako, or in the era, generally 

 identified with the S'aka era, which was employed by Kanishka. These 

 are the only three eras, in which Ariau inscriptions from the Gandkara 

 region are known to bo dated, and it is reasonable to assume, in the 

 absence of evidence to the contrary, that the number 274 refers to one 

 or other of these epochs. The initial point of no one of the three has 

 yet been ascertained, and consequently an exact date for the new 

 inscription cannot be fixed in any case. But the approximate beginnings 

 of all three eras can be determined by numismatic evidence, and one of 

 two approximate dates can be selected for the inscription. 



The coins indicate that the eras used both by Moga and Gondophares 

 must have their starting points about the middle of the first century 

 B. C., and, so far as appears at present, the two may have been identi- 

 cal. For the purpose of selecting an approximate date for the inscrip- 

 tion they may bo treated as one, and as equivalent to the era B. 0. 57, 

 known to the later ages as the Vikrama Samvat.* 



* Assuming that the Maharaja Guduphara of tho Takkt-i-Bahi inscription is iden- 

 tical with the sovereign whose name is variously given on coins, in the genitive case, 

 as Undopherrou, (ioudopharou, Gudapharasa, Gudaphanasa, and Gadapharasa, or, 

 in the nominative case, as Undophares ; and assuming further that all tho coins 

 alluded to were struck by one king, then tho numismatic evidence indicates that he 

 flourished in the first, half of tho first century B. G. (See Gardner's Catalogue of the 

 Coins of tin; Gtreelt and Seijlhic Kings, pp. XLIV, 103—108, Plates XXII, XXIII 

 XXXII). The year 103 of Gondophares would therefore fall about the middlo of 

 tho first century A. D., and, for rough approximations, his era may bo regarded as 

 identical with that of Vikrama, 



Assuming that Moga of the Taxilan inscription is identical with Manes, who is 

 known from coins, his dato must bo fixed as about GO or 70 B. C., which, again, is 

 nearly synchronous with the era of Vikrama (See Gardner, ii/i. XXXIJ1, XLIX. For 

 the Taxilan inscription seo Cunningham, Arehceol. Rep., Vol. 11, p. 132, PI, L1X, and 

 Vol. V, p. 07). 



1 must not, of coarse, be understood to suggest that as a matter of fact either 

 Moga or GoiulopliuroB used the era afterwards known as the Vikrama Samvat, 1 use 



