1892. J V. A. Smith —On the Civilization of Ancient India. 
55 
I should have mentioned that there are a few scratches or imperfect 
characters on the stone below the inscription, but these do not seem 
ever to have had any meaning. 
I was inclined to refer the date 284 or 274 to the S'aka era of A. D. 
78 rather than to that of Gondophares and Moga (Manas), chiefly on 
account of the inferiority of the style of the figures on the pedestal as 
compared with that of the best Romano-Buddhist sculpture. 
But, when discussing the remarkable statuette of the Emaciated 
Buddha of which he gives a plate, Mr. Senart points out {note, p. 43) that 
the execution of the principal figure is far superior to that of the minor 
figures of the relief on the pedestal. “A cet egard, on remarquera 
l’ecart qui s’ accuse entre la figure principale et le basrelief qui decore le 
socle, et qui est traite assai sommairement, sans doute comme une scene 
conventionelle multipliee en nombreuses repliques par des artistes 
inferieurs. II y’a la un avertissement qui ne doit pas etre perdu pour ceux 
qui s’ attacheront a etablir la serie chronologique des ouvrages greco- 
buddhiques.” 
The observation is perfectly correct, and I readily accept the warn¬ 
ing. I am quite willing to admit now that the era of either Gondophares 
or Moga is most likely that in which the Hashtnagar pedestal is dated, 
and that its approximate date is therefore about A. D. 220 or 230. 
Very probably the principal statue, which Mr. King was unable to ap¬ 
propriate, was executed in a style much superior to that of the pedestal. 
On this supposition the work is contemporary with the Jamalgarhi 
sculptures, and my arguments concerning the date of those remains are 
strongly confirmed. My approximate date for the best sculptures at 
Jamalgarhi is A. D. 250. 
It is still uncertain whether the eras used by Gondophares and 
Moga are identical or different. Mr. Senart ( p. 19) shows that the 
mode of expressing the date in the Taxila inscription, namely, “ in the 
year 78 of the great King Mogas,” does not imply that the era used 
was founded by that sovereign. “ Rien n’ est moins vraisemblable. II 
suffit de se reporter aux epigraphes de Mathura (par example n os 1, 4, 
6, compares a 2, 4, 7) pour se convaincre que le nom du roi ajoute, au 
genitif, a 1’ indication de 1’ annee n’ implique ni que la date donnee se 
refere a une ere fondee par lui, ni qu elle ait pour point de depart le 
commencement de son regne. Comme, d’ autre part, quand un nom de 
roi est indique, il marque regulierement le souverain regnant, il faut 
pothavadasa is linguistically possible. (Indian Antiquary for Nov. 1891, Vol. XX, 
page 394). Sir A. Cunningham now calls the Arian alphabet by the name Gandhari- 
an, which is, I think, the best of the many names more or less current. 
