DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2371#0085
KATAK CAVES. 63
which are generally supposed to be sufficient for the purpose. I
would suggest, however, that as this date is arrived at principally
by calculating backwards at a rate of 30 years per reign from
Dhanabhuti II., and as 16 years on the average is a fairer rate,
it may be placed by him at least 50 years too early; the more
especially as even that king's reign is only determined from a
slight variation in the form of the letters used in the inscriptions,
which is by no means certain.1 On the whole I fancy 200 to
150 B.C. is a safer date to rely upon in the present state of our
knowledge. For myself I would prefer the most modern of these
two dates as the most probable. It is, at all events, the one most
in accordance with the character of the sculpture, which is, as nearly
as may be, half way between those of the rail at Buddha Graya, and
those found on the gateways at Sanchi.2
1 The Stupa of Bharkut, pp. 15 and 16.
2 From the great similarity that exists between the alphabetical characters found at
Bharhut, and those employed by Asoka in his numerous inscriptions, General
Cunningham was no doubt perfectly justified in assuming that the stupa's age could
not be far distant from that of his reign. At the same time, however, almost as if to
show how little reliance can be placed on Pateographie evidence alone, where extreme
precision is aimed at, and no other data are available, he quotes an inscription found
at Mathura recording some gifts of a king of the same name, whom he calls Dhana-
bhuti II., and joins the two together in his genealogical list, with only one name, that
of Vadha Pala, between them. {Stupa at Bharhut, p. 16.)
When General Cunningham first published this Mathura inscription {Reports, III.,
p. 36, Plate XVI.) he placed it in a chronological series, between one dated Samvat
98 and another dated Samvat 135, and from the form of its characters he was no
doubt correct in so doing, more especially as in Plate XIV. of the same volume, he
quotes another inscription of Huviskha dated Samvat 39, where the alphabet used is
very little, if at all earlier. If the Samvat referred to in these inscriptions was that of
Vikramaditya, as the General assumes, this would place this second Dhanabhuti about
a.d. 50 or 60. But as it seems certain this era was not invented at that time, it must
be Saka, and accordingly he could not have reigned before the end of the second
century of our era, and his connexion with the Bharhut stupa is out of the question.
Another point that makes the more modern date extremely probable, is that the
sculpture on the Mathura pillar represents the flight of the prince, Siddhartha, with the
Gandharvas holding up the feet of his horse in order that their noise might not awaken
the sleeping guards {Stupa at Bharkut, p. 16). As General Cunningham knows, and
admits, no representations of Buddha, are found either at Bharhut or Sanchi {Stupa at
Bharhut, p. 107), and this legend, though one of the most common among the Gandhara
sculptures, does not occur in India, so far as is at present known, before the time of
the Tope at Amravati in the fourth century ( Tree and Serpent Worship, Plate LIX.
which are generally supposed to be sufficient for the purpose. I
would suggest, however, that as this date is arrived at principally
by calculating backwards at a rate of 30 years per reign from
Dhanabhuti II., and as 16 years on the average is a fairer rate,
it may be placed by him at least 50 years too early; the more
especially as even that king's reign is only determined from a
slight variation in the form of the letters used in the inscriptions,
which is by no means certain.1 On the whole I fancy 200 to
150 B.C. is a safer date to rely upon in the present state of our
knowledge. For myself I would prefer the most modern of these
two dates as the most probable. It is, at all events, the one most
in accordance with the character of the sculpture, which is, as nearly
as may be, half way between those of the rail at Buddha Graya, and
those found on the gateways at Sanchi.2
1 The Stupa of Bharkut, pp. 15 and 16.
2 From the great similarity that exists between the alphabetical characters found at
Bharhut, and those employed by Asoka in his numerous inscriptions, General
Cunningham was no doubt perfectly justified in assuming that the stupa's age could
not be far distant from that of his reign. At the same time, however, almost as if to
show how little reliance can be placed on Pateographie evidence alone, where extreme
precision is aimed at, and no other data are available, he quotes an inscription found
at Mathura recording some gifts of a king of the same name, whom he calls Dhana-
bhuti II., and joins the two together in his genealogical list, with only one name, that
of Vadha Pala, between them. {Stupa at Bharhut, p. 16.)
When General Cunningham first published this Mathura inscription {Reports, III.,
p. 36, Plate XVI.) he placed it in a chronological series, between one dated Samvat
98 and another dated Samvat 135, and from the form of its characters he was no
doubt correct in so doing, more especially as in Plate XIV. of the same volume, he
quotes another inscription of Huviskha dated Samvat 39, where the alphabet used is
very little, if at all earlier. If the Samvat referred to in these inscriptions was that of
Vikramaditya, as the General assumes, this would place this second Dhanabhuti about
a.d. 50 or 60. But as it seems certain this era was not invented at that time, it must
be Saka, and accordingly he could not have reigned before the end of the second
century of our era, and his connexion with the Bharhut stupa is out of the question.
Another point that makes the more modern date extremely probable, is that the
sculpture on the Mathura pillar represents the flight of the prince, Siddhartha, with the
Gandharvas holding up the feet of his horse in order that their noise might not awaken
the sleeping guards {Stupa at Bharkut, p. 16). As General Cunningham knows, and
admits, no representations of Buddha, are found either at Bharhut or Sanchi {Stupa at
Bharhut, p. 107), and this legend, though one of the most common among the Gandhara
sculptures, does not occur in India, so far as is at present known, before the time of
the Tope at Amravati in the fourth century ( Tree and Serpent Worship, Plate LIX.