As before mentioned, we have neither buildings, nor coins, nor inscriptions belonging to this period, nor indeed any material facts that would enable us to verify the chronological data. It is, however, so near the time when these became abundant, that it does not seem unreasonable to hope that some such evidences may turn up. Till something is found, the absence of all such materials must remain as a curious piece of evidence regarding the important influence that the contact of the nations of the West had on the arts and civilization of India at the time.

Maurya, Sunga, and Kanwa Dynasties.

Chronology. Buildings.
Maurya Dynasty, 130 years.
B.C.
Chandragupta325
Bimbisara301 Hathi Gumpha, Udayagiri.
Asoka276 Caves at Barabhar, Inscriptions, Lâts, &c.
Suyasas240
Dasaratha230? Cave at Barabhar.
Sangata220?
Indrapalita212? Cave at Bhaja?
Somasarman210
Sasadharman203 Caves at Udayagiri.
Vrihadratha195 Rail at Bharhut.
Sunga Dynasty, 112 years.
Pushpamitra188 Cave at Bedsa.
Agnimitra152
Sujyeshtha144 Caves 9 and 12, Ajunta.
Vasumitra137
Badraka, or Ardraka129 Chaitya Cave, Nassick.
Pulindaka127
Ghoshavasu124
Vajramitra121
Bhagavata112
Devabhuti86 Cave at Karli.
Kanwa Dynasty, 45 years.
Vasudeva76
Bhumimitra67 Raj Rani cave, Udayagiri?
Narayana53
Susarman41
“ died31

The chronology of these three dynasties, as recorded in the Puranas, may admit of some adjustment in detail; but the whole is so reasonable and consistent that it can hardly be to any great extent. The whole, too, is now found to be so perfectly in accord with the architecture of their age, and with such inscriptions as have been found, that I see no reason whatever for doubting its general correctness.

The cardinal point on which the whole hinges is the twelfth year of Asoka’s reign after his consecration—the sixteenth from his inauguration. In that year he published his rock-cut edicts, in which he mentions his allies, Antiochus and Antigonus, Ptolemy (Philadelphus), Magas (of Cyrene), and Alexander (of Macedonia).[671] As it happens, all these five names are mentioned together in Justin’s abridgment of Trogus Pompeius (xxvi. 2, 3 and xxvii. 1), though without giving any date. As Magas, however, died B.C. 257, and the only year in which all five were alive together was either that year or the preceding, we may safely assume that the sixteenth of Asoka was B.C. 256 or B.C. 257. If that is so it seems impossible to bring down the date of the accession of Chandragupta to a time more modern than one or two years after B.C. 325. The Ceylonese annals allow him thirty-four years,[672] but our knowledge of what happened in India in Alexander’s time forbids any such extension. On the other hand, his accession happening in the year, or the year after, the defeat of Porus, is not exactly what we would expect from the context; but there is nothing, so far as I know, to controvert it.

Even if it were not so certain as it appears to be from the statements just quoted, there can be no doubt that the chronology of this period can easily be settled from the numerous inscriptions found in the rock-cut excavations quoted in the table, as well as from coins and other materials that exist. These dynasties thus become a fixed starting-point for all our inquiries, either backwards or forwards.

Andra, or Andrabritya Dynasty.

Chronology. Buildings.
B.C.
Sipraka31
Krishna A.D.8 Cave at Nassick.
Satakarni I.10 South gateway, Sanchi.
Purnotsanga28 Caves 10 and 11 Ajunta.
Srivaswami46
Satakarni II.64 Saka Era established A.D. 79.
Lambodara120 Nahapana cave, Nassick.
Apitaka138
Sangha150
Satakarni III.168 Rudra Dama, bridge inscription, A.D. 151.
Skandhaswati186
Mrigendra193
Kuntaluswati196
Swatikarna204
Pulomavit205
Gorakshaswasri241
Hala266
Mantalaka271
Purindra sena276
Sindara381
Rajadaswati6 ms.
Sivaswati284
Gautamiputra312 Gupta Era established A.D. 319; cave at
Nassick, outer rail Amravati.
Vasithi putra333
Pulomat335
Sivasri363
Skandaswati370
Yajnasri377 Cave at Nassick.
Vijaya406 Great cave Kenheri.
Chandrasri412
Pulomat422
“ died429
or436 Caves 16 17, and 19 Ajunta.

For this dynasty, as for the preceding three, we are dependent on the Puranas; but its chronology, like theirs, is so reasonable and so consistent with what we learn from other sources that I see no reason whatever for doubting its general correctness. There are slight discrepancies of course, not only as to names but as to the duration of this dynasty in the different Puranas. Thus the Vishnu Parana, according to Wilson, enumerates thirty kings, reigning 456 years; the Vayu and Bhagavat the same. The Matsya gives only twenty-nine kings, but makes them reign 460 years; but none of them give all the names, nor does the addition of the longest list extend beyond 435 years.[673] The whole, from Chandragupta to the last, are also added together (p. 232), and make up 751 years, or bringing the last of the Andras down to A.D. 426. The actual fixation of these dates will probably be found in Nassick cave inscriptions. Two of these bear dates: one, apparently in the reign of Pulomavi, or Padma, is dated nineteen from an unspecified era; the other is in the twenty-fourth year of the “modern era,” and the act recorded is, apparently, by order of Gautamiputra.[674] As it is, however, almost certain that the Gupta era, A.D. 319, was established in the reign of the last-named king, it seems probable that when these inscriptions are more carefully examined than they hitherto have been, they will fix these reigns with even greater certainty than we obtain from the Puranic dates; the one element of uncertainty being that the new era does not seem to be dated either from the accession of the king or from any great event, but four cycles of sixty years, or 240 years from the Saka era it was intended to supersede.[675]