History of Indian and Eastern Architecture

by James Fergusson

In the first place, because I can find no trace of any such era being in use before the cataclysm in A.D. 750. Bhau Daji states that he knows no inscription dated in it before the 11th century.[737] General Cunningham says it was not used as early as 826,[738] but, in another place, quotes an inscription in 754.[739] I know of none earlier; and can trace no allusion to any king of the name of Vicramaditya in the first century B.C., and no events that could have given rise to an era in 56 B.C. No trace of it is found in Thibet, in Burmah, or Cambodia, and it never was heard of in Ceylon or Java. In all these countries the Saka era is known and was used, and it seems strange that an era established by so powerful a Buddhist king as Kanishka should have endured for two or three centuries, and then perished, without leaving a trace in any Buddhist country, and then, after the 8th century, been revived and adopted by the Brahmans for their chronology. It may be so; but it is so strange, it seems to require some strong evidence to make it credible, and none such has yet been advanced.

Hitherto Kanishka’s date has been assumed almost wholly on numismatic evidence, but it seems to me without sufficient grounds. In all the lists hitherto published,[740] there are at least a dozen barbarian kings, several of whom, from the extent of their mintages, must have had long and prosperous reigns. To compress the whole into the sixty-four years that elapsed for the destruction of the Bactrian kingdom (120 B.C.), and the era of Vicramaditya (56 B.C.), seems to me a very strong measure, for which I can see no justification. To allow each, on an average, sixteen years’ reign, seems very much more probable, especially as many more names may yet be discovered—and even without them this would take us on to the Saka era (A.D. 79) without difficulty. One of them, Gondophares, as we shall presently see, reigned for twenty-six years at least.

The Roman consular coins found by M. Court, above referred to (ante, p. 79), were so worn as to be hardly legible, and though, therefore, they limit the antiquity of his reign certainly to this side of 44 B.C., they by no means prove that he was so early. On the contrary, the coins being worn, seems to prove that they were old before being buried; the probability is that they may have belonged to some pilgrim, or missionary, in the West, and had become sacred relics before they were enshrined. If Kanishka had merely wanted foreign coins, Greek or Roman, he might have had hundreds of perfect ones at his command. There must have been some other and holier motive for their deposit than merely to mark a date.

Every one has heard of the legend of St. Thomas the Apostle visiting the court of Gondophares, and, some add, being beheaded by his order. It may be a legend, and not one word of truth in it, but those who invented it in the second or third century must at least have had the means of knowing what was the name of the king who was on the throne of Gandhara at, or immediately after, the time of the Crucifixion. This name appears frequently on coins and inscriptions, and, from the numismatic evidence, has been placed by all as anterior to Kanishka, and I fancy that no one looking at the coins can well arrive at any other conclusion. If this is so, and he was reigning at any time between A.D. 33 and 50, Kanishka certainly belongs to the latter half of that century.

Against this it must be stated that both General Cunningham and Professor Dowson read an inscription of this king found at Takht-i-Bahi, as dated in his twenty-sixth year—one says in the 103rd,[741] the other 100th,[742] of the same Samvat as the inscription of Kanishka—a date which would answer perfectly for the legend. If this is so, there is an end of the controversy; but the stone is so worn, and the writing so indistinct, that I cannot see in the photographs of it what these gentlemen find there, and others are equally unable to do so; and besides this, it is such a wrench to all numismatic evidence to place the coins of Gondophares 100 years after those of Kanishka, that we must have more evidence than this imperfect inscription affords before we adopt its epochal date. The regnal date seems quite clear.

There is one other point of view from which this question may be regarded, but which it is difficult to express clearly without going to a greater length than our limits will admit of. It is the date of the third convocation, as the northern Buddhists call it—the fourth, according to the southern. It was held certainly under Kanishka’s auspices, and I cannot help fancying about the year 70 or 80 A.D. At that time, at least, Buddhism seems to have made a great stride in Thibet, in Burmah, and the East generally. It was about this time that it was fabled to have been first carried to Java, and about the time when it was first introduced in China.[743] It looks so like one of those outbursts of missionary zeal that followed all the three previous convocations, that I cannot help fancying that this one was held in the latter half of the first century, and that the era of the king who held it was allowed in all Buddhist countries to supersede that of the Nirvana, which, as far as I can see, was the only one that had existed previously in India.

To argue this out fully would require more space than its importance for architectural purposes would justify; but its bearing on the age of the Gandhara monasteries is in some respects considerable. If they are as modern as I suspect them to be, the more modern date for Kanishka would accord better with the known facts than carrying his date up before the Christian era.

Proceeding onward, the next name we come to of any importance is Mahiracula, who is said to have invaded Ceylon. There is, however, no trace of any such invasion at that time, which, by the application of averages would be about 180 A.D., if Kanishka ruled before, and 250 if after, the Christian Era. His date would be interesting if it could be ascertained from his connexion with Baladitya, the king of Magadha, whose story Hiouen Thsang tells in such minute detail.[744]

The Aditya dynasty opens with a king who is said to have been a kinsman of Vicramaditya, and is evidently the grandfather of the great king of that name, who figures prominently in the next dynasty as the patron of Matrigupta. The story of the latter is told in great detail in the ‘Raja Tarangini,’ and is one of the most curious episodes in the history. He was sent to Kashmir four years before the death of Vicramaditya (550), and on hearing of his patron’s decease, resigned his viceroyalty, and retired to Benares, leaving the throne to his successor, Pravarasena.

In speaking of the dynasty of Malwa, only twenty or twenty-five years were allowed for the reign of Sri Harsha, and only eighty for the whole duration, from the fall of the Guptas, 470, to the death of the great Vicramaditya, 550, a period, it seems from the evidence of the ‘Raja Tarangini,’ it is impossible to contract. Pratapaditya, the kinsman of the first, was, we are told, the great-grandfather of Megavahana, the first king of the next dynasty, and then we have one more king before we reach Hiranya, who is said to have been contemporary with the second Vicramaditya. Of course there may have been considerable overlapping at both ends, and the lives of the Kashmiri kings may have been short; but as we have six intermediate kings in the one list between the two Vicramadityas, and only one in the other, it seems that the last could hardly have ascended the throne before 515, if so early.