1889.] 



on lie Civilization, of Ancient India. 



1 19 



coins of Azes exhumed from under the temple of UaliAr-kUmnra (Sljah- 

 dhcri), from which the Indo-Ionic capitals and bases were extracted. 



The Indo-Corinthian examples should be equally old, at least all 

 the fine examples. But the oldest that can be proved, belongs to the 

 time of the Autonines, and is certainly older than Constantino. " 



[Here follow detailed references to the stupas at Manikyala and 

 elsewhere, and to the use of the Arian alphabet, which has been suffi- 

 ciently discussed above.] 



" I would, therefore, ascribe all the greater works, both of sculpture 

 and architecture, to the flourishing period of Kushau sway under 

 Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vasu Ueva — , or from 80 to 200 A. I). 



Doubtless many stnpas wore erected after A. D. 200 ; but they were 

 comparatively small, and their decorations rough and coarse." 



[Reference is then made to the Sahri Bahlol image, and the Hidda 

 and Baoti Pind topes, which will be discussed subsequently. J 



" I notice that none of the sculptured head-dresses show any affinity 

 with Sassanian costume, whereas the coins (Indo-Sassanian) show it 

 unmistakeably, from about the time of Bahrain Gor. From this I infer 

 that the sculptures are older than 400 A. U. 



" I believe that the strong Sassanian government from A. D. 280 to 

 450 formed a very effectual barrier to intercourse between Rome and 

 N.-W. India. Roman geld coins are plentiful down to the time of 

 Severus and Caracalla [A. D. 217], They then disappear until the 

 time of Justin [A. D. 52(3], Marcian [A. D. 450], Leo [A. D. 474], and 

 Anastasius." [A. D. 491-518].* 



I am not able to agree altogether with either Mr. Fergusson or Sir 

 A. Cunningham, and shall now proceed to state the reasons which seem 

 to mo sufficient to justify me in venturing to differ from such eminent 

 authorities. 



Tt will be convenient to attempt in the first place to fix possible 

 limiting dates, and, when that has been done, to determine, so far ns 

 may be, the approximate actual dates of the sculptures. The chronolo- 

 gical enquiry involves the determination of their aesthetic affinities. 



As to the initial date there is practically no dispute. It is impos- 

 sible to bo certain that " the Iudo-Grecian style " was really " introduced 



* My quotations are from a letter dated 8th January 1889, -with which Sir A. 

 Cunningham favoured mo in answer to enquiries, and which consequently, express 

 bis latest and deliberate opinion on the subject. In the Introduction to Volume V 



of the Areh;eologieal Ropoi-is ho had long ago expressed the same opinion as to tlio 

 rolatiou between the Kuslian dynasty and the Gfindh&ra sculptures, but the theory 

 which ho then hold as to the KushStl ohronology obliged him to fix the date of the 

 Boulpl ori s nearly a century and a half earlier than he now does. 



