1889.] on the denization of Ancient India. 153 



It is quite safe to assume that Buddhism had ceased to be an active 

 force in the Gandhara region, including Taxila, by the year A. D. 600 ; 

 and it is inconceivable that new religious edifices on any considerable 

 scale should have been erected, or works of art deserving of the name, 

 executed in that region subsequent to that date by the scattered, poverty- 

 stricken, and necessarily dispirited adherents of a decaying religion. 



It follows, therefore, that the seiies of GraBco-Buddhist works in 

 Gandhara does not extend, as Sir. Fergusson supposed, to the eighth 

 century, but, on the contrary, was closed by the end of the sixth 

 century. 



As a matter of fact, the closing date must, I believe, be pushed 

 back considerably farther, but in any case, A. D. 600 must be taken as the 

 extreme possible limiting posterior date for any work of the Gandhava school 

 in the Lower Kabul Valley. The dates of which we are in search lie, 

 therefore, between A. D. 1 and A. D. 600. 



The above argument, based on the testimony of Hiuon Tsiang, 

 appears to me unanswerable, but it may be well to supplement it by 

 other arguments, in themselves of less force, which reduce the closing 

 date to still narrower bounds. I have already quoted Sir A Cunniug- 

 ham's remark that the head dresses of the Gandhara sculptures show no 

 w» affinity with the Sassauian costume, and that the sculptures may there- 



fore be regarded as prior, not only to A. D. 600, but to A. D. 400. 



Another observation of Sir A. Cunningham's leads to nearly the 

 same conclusion. He observes that " all, or nearly all, Buddhist build- 

 ing must have been stopped after the occupation of Peshawar by 

 Kitolo's son in the latter part of the fifth century." The Chinese ac- 

 count show that " the last king of the Ynchi [Yueh-ti] mentioned in 

 history is Kitolo, who took possession of Gandhara, but was obliged to 

 return to the west to oppose the white Huns, leaving his son in charge 

 of the new province. The son established his capital in Fo-lu-she, 

 or Parshawar [Peshawar] ; and the name of the founder of the Little 

 Yuchi, as they were afterwards called, still survives in the title of Shah 

 Kator, the Chief of Chitral."* 



The coins of the kings of the Little Yuchi are described as bearing 

 S'aiva emblenis,t and the kings themselves, therefore, were presumably 

 Brahmanists. It is going too far to assume with Sir A. Cunningham 

 that the rule of a S'aiva king must necessarily have put a stop to all, 

 or nearly all, Buddhist buildings, but it must certainly have been uu- 



* My first quotation ia from a private letter. The second is from Archmol. 

 Rep., Vol. II, p. 03. I have not verified the reference to Chinese authors, which 

 is not given in detail. 



t Archoeol Rep., Vol. V, p. 7. I have not seen any of these coins. 



