Hāritī and the Chronology of the KuṣāṇasAuthor(s): A. D. H. BivarSource: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 33,No. 1, In Honour of Sir Harold Bailey (1970), pp. 10-21Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/613317 .Accessed: 20/05/2011 09:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University ofLondon.

http://www.jstor.org

HARITI AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KUSANAS

By A. D. H. BIVAR

(PLATES I-V)

The view has more than once been mooted amongst archaeologists, though dissenting voices have frequently made themselves heard, that the art of the ' Graeco-Buddhist ' School of Gandhara is contemporary with the zenith of the

Kusa.na dynasty under the rulers Kaniska, Huviska, and perhaps ViEsudeva. 1

A further analysis is naturally required to convert this proposition into terms of absolute chronology. Yet the basic thesis is one that would find justification in an argument developed by Ibn Khaldmin in his masterpiece of historical theory, the Muqaddima : 2

'The monuments of a dynasty are its buildings and large (edifices). They are proportionate to the original power of the dynasty. They can materialize only when there are many workers, and united action and co-operation. When a dynasty is large and far-flung, with many provinces and subjects, workers are very plentiful, and can be brought together from all sides and regions. Thus even the largest monument can materialize'.

As evidence grows that the dynasty of the Kusdnas was powerful and affluent, the likelihood of their having possessed a rich material culture becomes in- creasingly evident. The rulers, perhaps, were not themselves Buddhist, and there are indications that they patronized also a more secular style of art which may be termed the Royal Kusana School.3 Yet their wealth will have been shared with their subjects, and the art of Gandhara, lacking other evident historical context, would find an intelligible place as a part of culture under the Kusanas. The present attempt to outline a meaningful chronology for Gandhara art, in the early stages of which he gave valued encouragement, is offered in homage to Sir Harold Bailey, whose studies have long been an indispensable guide to the world of Buddhism on the borders of India and Iran.

To invoke the doctrine of Ibn Khaldfin is perhaps less arbitrary than may appear at first sight. But a more formal argument needs specific evidence, and a few such items are indeed to hand. The Kaniska casket at Peshawar is

undoubtedly a product of Gandhara art.4 Opinions vary as to whether it

represents an early or a late stage in the tradition; 5 whether the ruler named is

1 e.g. B. Rowland, The art and architecture of India, London, 1953, 78. 2 Ibn Khaldiin, Muqaddima, tr. F. Rosenthal, New York, 1958, I, 356. 3 J. Rosenfield, The dynastic arts of the Kushans, Berkeley, 1967, ix; 'dynastic' sculpture

a)(1ssim. 4 Pace Mirella Levi d'Ancona, ' Is the Kaniqka reliquary a work of MathurA ? ', Art Bulletin,

xxxI, 1949, 321-3. He may well be right in noticing signs of Mathurd influence.

5 That it is late is averred by Sir John Marshall, ' Greeks and Sakas in India ', JRAS, 1947, 30. However, B. Rowland, 'Revised chronology of Gandhdra sculpture', Art Bulletin, xvIII, 1936, 391, maintains that it was ' not decadent but archaic '.

HARITI AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KU$ANAS 11

Kaniska I or a namesake ; 6 and whether or not it belongs to the first regnal year. The present writer, on current evidence,' sees no great objection to the view that the Kaniska of the casket may have been Kaniska I. But for the

present purpose such differences are merely marginal, since the first and second

Kaniskas are divided by an interval of only 18 years.8 On the other hand, the

position of the Kaniska casket in the art of Gandhara is far from isolated. Its

Romanizing putti with their swags of garlands have often been recognized as a

typical Gandhara feature.9 The affinities of the casket with the paintings of the shrine of Miran in distant Sinkiang are particularly close.10 For the present writer, not many years, a decade at the very most, can separate the two.

Through the casket, this whole group is linked with Kaniska. No other work of Gandhara Buddhist sculpture bears the actual name of

one of the three Kus.na

rulers. This silence is in marked contrast with the situation at Mathuri, where numerous images, both Jain and Buddhist, are inscribed with one or other of the three royal names." There are none the less

pieces of indirect evidence to support the contemporaneity of the rulers and the artistic school.

An essential part of the definition of Gandhara sculpture, a term we shall later specify more precisely, is that it is an art which represents the Buddha in human form. This was not the practice of the ancient Indian artistic schools, so that the appearance of the representational Buddha marks in a real sense the genesis of Gandhara art.12 Now the figure of Buddha, labelled with his name, appears on well-known coins of Kaniska,'3 which thus provide a terminus ante quem for the commencement of the style.

Another point to be considered is that a significant number of Gandhdra

sculptures bear Kharosthl inscriptions. Four of these are dated, and they will be examined shortly. In addition, there are many short donors' inscriptions in

6 Objections to the identification of the Kaniska of the casket with Kaniqka I are listed by N. G. Majumdar, A guide to the sculptures in the Indian Museum. Part II. The Graeco-Buddhist School of Gandhdra, Delhi, 1937, p. 13, n. 3.

7 B. N. Mukherjee,' Shih-ji-ki-.Dheri

casket inscription', British Museum Quarterly, xxvIII, 1-2, 1965, 41.

8 On the hypothesis that the Ara inscription of year 41 (S. Konow, Corpus inscriptionum indicarum 11, 1, p. 162) belongs to a second Kaniqka, and that the reign of the first came to an end in year 23. The pedestal from Dalpat-ki-Khirki Mohalla, Mathurd, taken by V. V. Mirashi, Epigraphia Indica,

xxvw, 7, 1942, [pub.] 1951, 293, as of year 54, is here ascribed to year 14, with H. Liiders, Mathurd inscriptions, Gdttingen, 1961, 116, and D. R. Sahni, Epigraphia Indica, xxx, 1927, 96.

9 H. Buchthal, 'The foundations for a chronology of Gandhira sculpture ', Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society, xxx, 1942-3, p. 22 and pl. I.

10 F. H. Andrews, Wall paintings from ancient shrines in Central Asia, pl. III. Sir Aurel Stein's preliminary dating (Serindia, I, 491, 530, 538) to the third or fourth century A.D. is thus not to be insisted upon.

11 A table of the relevant inscriptions will be found in the forthcoming Cambridge History of Iran, III.

12 The question of whether the Buddha figure appeared first in Gandhdra or at Mathurd is of course not at issue here.

13 Catalogue of Indian coins in the British Museum : Greek and Scythic kings of Bactria and India, repr., Chicago, 1966, p. 130, no. 15.

12 A. D. H. BIVAR

Kharosthi, such as that of Peshawar Museum sculpture No. 1938.14 Though several are more highly cursive than others, their letter-forms in general corre-

spond with those of other Kharosthl inscriptions which mention the names of Kaniska and Huviska,15 and in general terms, with the KharosthI Dharmapada.16 Relevant for a terminus post quem is the obvious distinction that the head of the

character -sa is in Gandhara contexts uncrossed ( ), whereas in the second

century B.C., under the Indo-Greeks, it had been fully crossed ( ) ; during

the first century B.C. or early first A.D., in all but very cursive hands, partially

or rudimentarily so ( ). Similar script to that of the sculptures indeed

occurs on coins of the Kunsana Vima Kadphises, predecessor of Kaniska, but

subsequently the use of Kharosthl on coinage was discontinued. However, it is not easy to fix the date of its disappearance in other contexts, and so to

complete this reasoning by establishing a lower limit for Gandhara art on

epigraphic grounds. The indications noted in no way oppose a synchronism between the art of

Gandhara and the zenith of the Kusanas, more particularly under Kaniska. Such was the conclusion reached by Sir Alexander Cunningham, 'whose mature opinion in January 1889 was to the effect that all the greater works, both of sculpture and architecture, should be ascribed to "the flourishing period of Kushan sway under Kanishka, Huvishka and Vasudeva, or from 80 to 200 A.D." '.17 Vincent Smith at first disputed this hypothesis, but later came to accept it. The absolute chronology is a question to be examined

separately, but taken purely as a synchronism the time-honoured hypothesis seems a tenable one. If it is adopted, the problem of the chronology of Gandhara art becomes identical with that of the date of Kaniska and his successors, which is in turn the problem of the Kaniska Era. Before we proceed to in-

vestigate it, there is a matter of definitions to be settled. Some modern writers give the term 'Gandhara art' a far wider extension

than others. Meaningful discussion of the chronology is difficult until bounds have been placed on the extent of what is being dated. In the present discussion

Gandhara art in the strict sense comprises Buddhist sculpture in schist from Pakistan, and near-by districts of Afghanistan, in particular Hadda is and the

neighbourhood of Charikdr. In Afghanistan and Soviet territory near-by there is also limestone sculpture, sometimes called Irano-Buddhist, which may well

14 CHI, II, 1, p. 134 (= M. A. Shakur, A hand book to the inscriptions gallery in the Peshawar Museum, Peshawar, 1946, p. 28, no. 27).

15 CHI, II, 1, p. 141 (Sui Vihlr), 145 (Zeda), 149 (Minikidla) ; 170 (Wardak). 16 J. Brough (ed.), The Gandhdri Dharmapada, London, 1962, 55. 17 V. A. Smith, 'The Kushln, or Indo-Scythian, period of Indian history,-B.c. 165-A.D. 320',

JRAS, 1903, 49, quoting correspondence with Sir Alexander Cunningham. 18 B. Dagens, M. Le Berre, and D. Schlumberger, Monuments prdislamiques d'Afghanistan

(M6moires de la D616gation Arch6ologique Franqaise en Afghanistan, xIx), Paris, 1964, 11 ff.

HARITI AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KUAN.AS

13

be contemporary, but since it represents a slightly different cultural blend, needs to be treated separately. Besides the output in schist, the present com- mentator would include a corpus of figures in stucco, reported in particular from Taxila and HIadda,19 to which their medium permits a somewhat freer treatment. It is sometimes maintained that the sculpture in stucco is late, and provides evidence for the prolongation of Gandhara art into the fifth century A.D.20 It is true that there exists a small group of pieces in stucco, and terra-cotta, in which the Sasanian decorative influence justifies a date later than the bulk of Gandhdra sculpture;21 but their existence does not, in the present writer's view, constitute grounds for a late dating of the whole output in these materials. The greater part should rather be placed slightly earlier than the floruit of the schist. As already noticed, the Miran frescoes, and such metal-work as the Bimaran and Kaniska caskets, also fall within the present definition. But the wide range of monuments obviously later than the Kusana Empire, in particular groups of frescoes from Banmiyan, and others from Qizil and elsewhere in Sinkiang, despite their fairly marked indications of Gandh1ra influence, are excluded from the discussion.

From the foregoing remarks it is sufficiently clear that the date selected for the commencement of the Kaniska Era is crucial for the whole chronology of Gandhdra art. The relative dating of the three Kusana emperors, Kaniska, Huviska, and Vasudeva, is on the other hand already well established. Kaniska is named in inscriptions from year 1 (or possibly year 2) until year 23 of the relevant era, and was probably de facto ruler before its inauguration. Vasiska is attested in years 24 and 28; Huviska from years 28 to 60. The possible second Kaniska of the Ard inscription is credited with year 41, and represents a possible instance of royal collegiality. Vasudeva claims the years from 74 to 98. The demonstrable life of the era and of the succession was therefore almost exactly 100 years. It is less clear whether this dating system extended into a second century. The notable absence of dates immediately higher than 100 has inspired theories of an era operating with 'omitted hundreds '. This solution is naturally open to misuse, for its indiscriminate application could be used in support of any chronology. There does, however, seem to be one genuine case

19 Besides these well-known sites, stucco heads were reported in some number from Peshawar (which may then have included the present Mardan) District, cf. V. A. Smith,' Graeco-Roman influence on the civilization of ancient India ', Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, LVIII, Pt. I, No. 3, 1889, 137.

20 This opinion was long maintained by Sir John Marshall, e.g. ' Greeks and Sakas in India ', JRAS, 1947, 17, and in his Taxila is taken as axiomatic. It has, however, been criticized in other quarters.

21 For example the terra-cotta plaque of a seated Buddha from Damkot, near Chakdarra, with floral scrollwork and heraldic leogryphs (A. H. Dani, Gandhara art of Pakistan, Peshawar, 1968, pl. xvIII). Cf. the well-known panels with floral scrolls and leogryph from Cave V of the 53-metre Buddha at Bimiy~in, B. Rowland, Ancient art from Afghanistan, New York, 1966, nos. 81, 82. Both have affinities with the British Museum silver bowl, 0. M. Dalton, The treasure of the Oxus, third ed., London, 1964, p. 53, no. 201, and pl. xxIx, no doubt rightly ascribed to the later fourth or early fifth century A.D.

14 A. D. H. BIVAR

of this practice, soon to be examined, though it does not happen to occur in connexion with the Era of Kaniska.

The next requirement is to convert these and other relative dates into absolute terms. The multiplicity of Indian eras has produced much controversy, but for the north-western inscriptions good results can be achieved with the use of three starting-points.

(a) c. 155 B.c., the era of the Patika copper plate,22 formerly called the Old Saka Era, more recently attributed to the Indo-Greek Menander. It occurs not only in the first century B.C., but also at a much later date when it may be

recognized by the presence of high numbers, often in the 300's. (b) 57 B.c., the Vikrama Era, still extant, which Sir John Marshall seems

to have been right in attributing to the Indo-Scythian Azes. (c) The Era of Kaniska. The identification of the third era has occasioned

the most difficulty. Of the various suggested starting-points, that of A.D. 78 has commanded some support.23 More satisfactory, however, on the latest evidence is either A.D. 125 24 or A.D. 128.25 It is not easy at present to make a final choice between the two, but in a previous article the writer supported a solution on these general lines.26 In the following discussion the Era of Kaniska will be taken as having begun in A.D. 128. The reigns of the three principal Kusanas will consequently have lasted from A.D. 128 to A.D. 226. The hypothesis now under examination is that the art of Gandhara belongs largely to this

period. The problem remains to determine precisely how the artistic output may be fitted into this broad chronological range.

There are, fundamentally, two approaches to this problem. It is convenient to call them the long and the short chronologies. For the advocate of the first, Gandhara art made its appearance in the second half of the first century A.D., but was of long duration, continuing until the fourth and even the fifth century A.D. One version of this long chronology was maintained by Sir John Marshall, who divided the art of Gandhara into two phases. The first, which he called the Gandhara, or Early Gandhara School, he regarded as extending from the late first century A.D. until the demise of Vasudeva (c. A.D. 226), and to this he ascribed the sculpture in schist. A second, which he styled the Indo-Afghan School, would have comprised most of the works in stucco and terra-cotta, and this he ascribed to the fourth and even the fifth century A.D. It may help to

explain the origins of this theory if we suggest that at Taxila, the site which Sir John knew best, mountain monasteries with many stuccoes may have remained in use as he supposed until the coming of the White Huns, whereas

22 W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, second ed., Cambridge, 1951, 494. For its attribution to Menander see the present writer's note in BSOAS, xxvi, 3, 1963, p. 501, n. 1.

23 A.D. 78 is, of course, the starting-point of the Saka Era under the Western Satraps, but there is still no clear evidence for its use in the north-west.

24 V. A. Smith, JRAS, 1903, 31. 25 W. E. van Wijk, ' On dates in the Kaniqka Era ', Acta Orientalia, v, 1927, 168-70. This

result was of course accepted by Sir John Marshall, Taxila I, 71, whose dynastic, but not artistic, chronology is followed here almost in its entirety.

26 ' The Kaniska dating from Surkh Kotal', BSOAS, xxvi, 3, 1963, 489-502.

HARITI AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE

KUAAN.AS 15

west of the Indus where schist was predominant much destruction and abandon- ment may have followed the Sasanian conquest not long after A.D. 226.27

Stratigraphic evidence from the floors of Buddhist buildings conveys this

impression, but refers, of course, to the abandonment rather than the construc- tion of the premises.

Another version of the ' long chronology ' has commanded wider acceptance. It is adopted by so well-informed a commentator as Professor Ingholt,28 whose rather complex statement of his position may be partly summed up in his words: 'I therefore conclude that the Gandhara Bodhisattvas as a general rule are to be dated after A.D. 240 '. Thus he envisages the output of the School

extending from the first to the third, and even fourth centuries A.D. A similar

chronology is the basis of the elaborate stylistic analysis by Dieter Ahrens.29 The weakness of his method, as seen here, is that in the context of Gandhara the analysis of such minutiae as the development of drapery provides no sort of absolute time-scale. These developments could have taken 100 years (as argued) or no more than 10. They could be the individual mannerisms of contemporary sculptors. It becomes, indeed, very evident from studies of this type that

stylistic development in Gandhara art is far from obvious. There have been

many cases where a product considered late by one authority has been pro- nounced early by another, though admittedly such seeming contradictions may sometimes be due to differences of chronological standpoint. Nevertheless the

impression is conveyed that mountains are being made out of mole-hills. If the long chronology were justified, its duration should be more obvious from the material. At the same time, however, the long chronology has an insidious attraction. Its imprecision covers a multitude of uncertainties. On the one hand, a loose definition of Gandhara art enables a wide range of derivative styles, some certainly as late as the fifth century, to be included. At the same time, hesitations as to the dates of the Kusdna rulers cause no inconvenience. If the advocate of the long chronology believes the schist sculpture to be syn- chronous with the reign of Kaniska, it matters not whether that ruler belonged to the second, third, or even the fourth century. All possibilities are covered. If he maintains that they were separated in time, there is ample room to accommodate them both. Thus the long chronology is almost infinitely flexible. Because this seems to provide for all eventualities, it is hardly surprising that this interpretation pervades much of the current literature.

By contrast, the short chronology is simple to the point of crudity. In its most extreme form, its principal rule is to bring all the sculptures as nearly as

27 Thus seven coins of Visudeva were reported from the excavations of Jamilgirhi, cf. A.

Cunningham, Archaeological Survey of India [Reports], v, 1875, 194, with the possible implication that the site was abandoned in this reign. At Sanghao, coins of Kaniqka were found in the ' superstructure', which was thus presumably standing in that emperor's reign. The sculptures were, however, in the ' basement', and thus possibly (but not necessarily) earlier (V. A. Smith, JASB, LVIII, Pt. I, No. 3, 1889, 147).

28 Harald Ingholt, Gandhdran art in Pakistan, New York, 1957, 28. 29 Die R5mische Grundlagen der Gandharakunst (Orbis Antiquus, 20), Miinster, 1961.

16 A. D. H. BIVAR

possible to the same date. We have quoted the words of Cunningham, that the duration of the style was from A.D. 80 to 200. A substantially parallel opinion was expressed by Hargreaves : 30

' Of these Kushan rulers the greatest and most powerful was Kanishka, who made Purushapura, the modern Peshawar, his winter capital, and extended his conquests from the borders of China to those of Bengal. Then, and for the only time in its chequered history, Gandhara ceased to be a frontier. Under Kanishka and his successors Huvishka and Vasudeva it

enjoyed its period of greatest prosperity, and it is to this era that, with one

exception, all of the ancient monuments of Gandhara, from the stupas of the Khyber to the ruined walls still visible in the high banks of the Indus at Hund, are to be assigned ...'. Cunningham's starting-point is perhaps not controversial. If Gondophares

was ruling at Taxila in A.D. 46,31 Marshall's date for the fall of Sirkap to the Kusanas, c. A.D. 60, should not be far from the truth. The Buddha image, diagnostic feature of the Gandhara School, was absent at Sirkap,32 but could have appeared in the sequel of the Kusana conquest there, and thus close to

Cunningham's date. The Bimaran casket, usually reckoned as an early piece, would come before A.D. 100. It may be, however, that Cunningham's lower bracket can be shortened.

There are, as is well known, four pieces of Gandhara sculpture that bear

explicit dates. Their interpretation has long been a source of difficulty. It must be considered whether they can be reconciled with the short chronology, and if so, what precision they contribute to the general picture. None gives the assistance of mentioning a royal name, but we are not obliged to deduce that the Kusana rulers were unknown to their authors. It is often said that all four cannot belong to the same era. With a few small emendations, however, this

scepticism can be overcome, and the era explained as one which co-existed with the Kusianas.

The inscriptions in question are the following, not here listed in chronological order, but in that of ease of interpretation :

(a) Loriyan Tangai Buddha and pedestal of year 318 (plate 1).33 (b) Hashtnagar pedestal, supposedly of year 384 (plate JJ).83 (c) Mamane Dheri relief of year 89.35 (d) Skarah Dheri Hlriti figure allegedly of year 399 (plate Iv).36

The Loriyan Tangai Buddha presents no real problem. Dates in the 300's are

30 H. Hargreaves, Handbook to the sculptures in the Peshawar Museum, Calcutta, 1930, 4. 31 Since the Takht-i B~hi inscription of year 103 (CII, 11, 1, pp. 57 ff.) is best related to the

Vikrama Era of 57 B.c., and thus preserves the king's synchronism with the Apostle Thomas. 32 The single Gandhdra panel reported by Sir John Marshall,' Greeks and Sakas in India',

JRAS, 1947, pl. vIi, fig. 12, lay close to the surface, and was isolated, thereby suggesting that it was not in situ, but a stray brought in the past from a near-by monastery site.

33 CII, II, 1, p. 106.

34 ibid., p. 117. 35 ibid., p. 171. 36 ibid., p. 124.

PLATE I

........................ i l il ... . :" : :ii i!i

ip 41's.m

AW? :'6i: ::'-: p _~ _:r_:

It- i a -

THE INSCRIPTION OF THE BUDDHA FROM LORIYAN TANGAI. DATED YEAR 318 -- A.D. 163. INDIAN MUSEUM, CALCUTTA

BSOAS. XXXIII]

PLATE II

[CutsyBiih uei

THE HASHTNAGAR PEDESTAL. DETAIL OF CRITICAL PORTION OF INSCRIPTION, BEARING THE DATE IN CIPHERS

BSOAS. XXXIII]

Or

?J

rd x : . .... ... .. ........iriii

ii'i'i- : i~i -i:- iiii- 'i-i-iiiiii~i

, ~i-:ii~i-i~;ii~iiiHiii-ii

iiiii~ii~iiiiiiiiiiii~ii

• •-

-: :: .:.

i, ,•:•

•iiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiili

iim

"j-iil.•'~i: :: :i i l~~iiii ii- j_:g::iiii~i-i~iii-iiiiii

:_ iiiiiii- iii~ii~i~- i:iiiiii iiiiil - :---iii

!!

ii ii ii~i~i-!i-

i ',i::-i-

.iii

sii

......... ooo-tKsy Brit

h M -gr f :K:i:-_- ..........i:i:

57aiiiiiiiiiii-iiiZiii'

oil F iisiiii- ?-l k i_ : ii~-iiii~~ii iii~ K M- ::.ii-~-_iiiiiiiiiii OW N .:- -i ----ii:::-ii

W-W W S . . .....

swwniiiBi soi~i -:'-::- As.. .. ...... . ... .... .e u r

THE HASHTNACAAR PEDESTAL, ON ITS PRESENT PLINTH

i-d t-l

M

CII CII

PLATE IV

THE FIGURE OF HARITi FROM SKARAH DHERI. LAHORE MUSEUM

BSOAS. XXXIII]

PLATE V

[Courtesy British Museum

A FIGURE OF HiRITI IN GANDHARA MATURE STYLE. FROM TAKHT-I BiHI

BSOAS. XXXIII]

HARITI AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KU$ANAS 17

frequent in the Buddhist north-west.37 It was once said that dates in the 200's were unknown, but the writer hopes that this belief is now superseded.38 The

present note will provide further evidence of their existence. As in the case of the 'unfinished inscription' from Surkh Kotal, these high dates should be related to the era of 155 B.c. The solution of the Loriyan Tangai date will therefore be 318-155 = A.D. 163. The year in question is the 35th of the Kaniska Era, and the 8th regnal year of Huviska.

The Hashtnagar pedestal presents greater difficulty. Here a similar calcu- lation gives the result: 384-155 = A.D. 229. This falls after the presumed demise of Vasudeva, and beyond the range of possibilities allowed by our general hypothesis. However, when one inspects the monument (pl. 11 and III) it soon becomes clear that belief in the third hundred of this date rests on the slenderest of supports. The date is inscribed in ciphers, and each hundred is represented by a single hasta. The first of these hastae, if such it be, is located on a heavily damaged portion of the stone. The form of the date may be transcribed as follows :

sa [1]11 c 20 20 20 20 4 The photograph shows that the first presumed hasta has a character entirely different from the two which follow, and could be interpreted merely as an accidental scratch. It is important that the first two scholars to study this epigraph read the numerals as 274 and 284 without any hesitation.39 The

disagreement was due to Cunningham's having taken for 10 the fourth 'tens'

cipher which Smith with greater conviction read as a slightly flattened 20. The belief in a third 'hundreds' cipher was introduced by Senart in 1899.40 His discussion of the matter is, however, quite perfunctory, and it is difficult to share his assurance, as every subsequent writer has without question, that the

presence of the third 'hundred' is indisputable. It is true that at the base of the shallow scratch there are traces of a deeper indentation. Yet Vincent Smith's old photograph41 shows a point that the modern wooden pedestal of the sculpture has since concealed, that this deeper indentation continues obliquely below the inscription panel, on the lower moulding. Consequently this too is the product of accidental, if ancient, damage, and there is no epigraphic basis for the third 'hundred'. Such trifles constitute the stumbling-blocks in the way of a clear chronology of the Kusanas. The revised solution is therefore 284-155 = A.D. 129, equivalent to the second year of Kaniska.

37 e.g., the Kula Dheri (Ch~rsadda) casket of the year 303 (N. G. Majumdar,' Inscriptions on two relic caskets from Charsadda ', Epigraphia Indica, xxiv, 1, 1937, 9) ; the

Jamilg.rhi inscrip-

tion of the year 359. Their conversions, on the hypothesis developed here, are: Kula Dheri, 303- 155 = A.D. 148;

Jamilg.rhi, 359--155 = A.D. 204. The second figure seems late; it was

not upon a statue, but on a stone, Peshawar Museum, No. 23. 38 A. D. H. Bivar, BSOAS, xxvI, 3, 1963, 500. 39 V. A. Smith, ' Graeco-Roman influence on the civilization of ancient India. Second paper ',

JASB, LXI, Pt. I, No. 1, 1892, 54, with comments on the reading of Cunningham. The improve- ment of -8- for -7- was due originally to Senart.

40 M. 1?. Senart, ' Deux 6pigraphes du Svit ', JA, Ixe S6r., xiii, mai-juin 1899, 531. 41 V. A. Smith, JASB, LVIII, Pt. I, No. 3, 1889, pl. x, facing p. 144.

VOL. XXXmII.

PART 1. 2

18 A. D. H. BIVAR

The Mamnne Dheri image presents a different problem. The reading of its date is unquestionably 89, but the era is unidentified. Since there are no 'hundreds ', it is tempting to refer to the Kaniska Era, and propose the solution 89+128-1 = A.D. 216.42 This result falls only 10 years before the overthrow of the Kusana Empire, c. A.D. 226. Not only might one doubt the production of fine sculpture at that moment of decline. Despite the somewhat ' baroque' proliferation of background figures, the short chronology cannot entertain a

gap of 90 years, without obvious stylistic evolution, between this sculpture and the bulk of Gandhara art which has a relationship with Kaniska. There is however, an escape from this dilemma. If the theory of omitted ' hundreds' is

applied, a much more satisfactory result becomes possible. The full reading may be taken to have been (2)89, and the solution therefore (2)89-155 = A.D. 134, equivalent to the seventh year of Kaniska. The archaeological probability of such a solution may be seen to justify what at first appears to be a drastic emendation.

The last of the four dated statues, and in some ways the most difficult, is the Skarah Dheri Hariti image (plate Iv). The currently-accepted figure for its date is year 399. Applying the same calculation as in previous examples, we obtain the result 399-155 = A.D. 244. This date falls after the overthrow of the

Kusana Empire, c. A.D. 226, and is therefore inadmissible on general grounds. There is no earlier era known to which so high a date might be attributed. The reading has therefore to be checked for possible error. In this case, the date is expressed in words, and not in ciphers, but one of the characters is carelessly inscribed, and it happens to come at the critical point in the reading. The

interpretations of scholars have therefore been far from unanimous. The

prevalent view is based on Fleet's reading ek(u)na(cha)dudatimae 'one from four

hundred' (i.e. 399), which was accepted by Konow.43 On the other hand

Stratton, Vogel, Boyer, and Foucher took the characters for ekanasiti-dati-mae (= 179), which, of course, presents problems of its own. Yet the considered

reading of Majumdar 44was eka-navati-du-dati-mae (= 291). Since the dependent vowel of the -ka- aksara is quite uncertain, the whole question turns on the fourth and fifth characters, which are of enigmatic shape. Certainty of reading may perhaps never be achieved, but the attempt of Majumdar, made with full

knowledge of the previous versions, is at least as plausible as any other, and

produces a result in perfect harmony with the present scheme. On this basis the calculation is 291-155 = A.D. 136, or the ninth year of Kaniska.

Of the four dated sculptures, three are now ascribed to the second, seventh,

42 When converting dates of an era later than A.D. 1, one year must always be subtracted from the sum, to allow for the fact that the year of origin is 1 and not 0.

43 CII, II, 1, p. 125, where earlier references are listed. It is also accepted by K. Walton Dobbins, 'A note on the Hiriti image from SkArah

.)heri, year 399', East and West, NS, xvII,

3-4, 1967, 268-72, who gives excellent illustrations.

44 N. G. Majumdar, A guide to the sculptures in the Indian Museum. Part Ii. The Graeco- Buddhist School of Gandhdra, 19. Majumdar was possibly influenced in his reading by some general theory of Gandhlra chronology similar to that advanced in the present article (of which the main reference points are far from new), but he does not state this explicitly. Even if this were so, his

reading is in no way invalidated.

HARITI AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KU$ANAS 19

and ninth years of Kaniska, and one to the 35th year of Kaniska or 8th of Huviska. It will be noted that these building periods correspond with those

implied by the inscriptions from Surkh Kotal, which suggest building activity immediately before Kaniska's inaugural year, and in year 31 of the Era, corresponding to the fourth of Huviska. If therefore the arithmetic of the

preceding pages has at times been brutal, the results, at least, are not without a certain plausibility. Naturally it is assumed that Gandhara sculpture was also in production before the inauguration of Kaniska in A.D. 128, although no dated piece can be found to prove it. It is less obvious whether any was produced during the reign of Vasudeva, but since the dated material is anyway so scarce, the possibility of a few late pieces cannot be ruled out. Our next argument will show that there may have been a reason why the later output was not plentiful.

Though scepticism has hitherto been expressed here of the validity of stylistic dating as recently practised for the sculpture of Gandhara, it does seem possible to distinguish certain broad chronological groups under the ' short chronology '. These may be characterized as the Early Group (c. A.D. 80-100); the Middle

Group (A.D. 128-38); and the Mature Group (c. A.D. 156-65). There is, it is

suggested, an external verification which might serve to check these datings. The figure of Hariti, the goddess with many children (plate v), is of frequent occurrence in Gandhara sculpture. To one, not quite typical, example we have ascribed a date of A.D. 136. The majority, however, represent our Mature Group. The classic explanation of this figure was supplied by Foucher, who quotes from the seventh-century A.D. Chinese traveller I-tsing.45 She represented the demon of the sickness of smallpox, who was propitiated, in that author's time, with

offerings of food in every Buddhist monastery. By the time of I-tsing, the

propitiation of Hariti had become a routine matter, but this need not necessarily have been the case in earlier periods. The subject is notably common in Gand- hara sculpture. The British Museum specimen, from Takht-i Bahi, represents our Mature Group. Ingholt's album illustrates six Hariti figures in Pakistan

collections.46 One carries as attribute the trisila, a symbol of Siva which has an obvious relevance to the destructive effects of smallpox. Ten examples, on which the goddess is associated with a male consort, said to be the yaksa Pancika, are listed at Calcutta.47 The subject is popular on Gandhdra gems. The numerous infants accompanying the goddess have obvious reference to the tragic mortality amongst children when smallpox infects an unvaccinated

population. This deity need have had no essential place in Buddhist worship, and so great and costly an output of statues, many in fine style and representing substantial economic outlay, suggests that the devotees were seeking to avert a threat of infection.

It is a well known, but hitherto unrelated fact, that in A.D. 166 the Roman Empire was assailed by a devastating pestilence, which the best-informed

45 A. Foucher, L'art gr&co-bouddhique du Gandhira, Paris, 1918, II, 130. 46 Harald Ingholt, Gandhiran art in Pakistan, figs. 340-5. 41 N. G. Majumdar, Guide, 98-101.

20 A. D. H. BIVAR

authors termed Jd [yas Aoc/pds 'the Great Pestilence'. Roman troops who entered Ctesiphon late in A.D. 165 were the first to encounter the infection, and

brought it with them on their return to the Roman frontiers.48 Soon a high death-rate was being recorded in Rome,49 and contagion spread throughout the

provinces. An inscription from Caesarea Troketta in Lydia which speaks of

AoLods M 8VEdcAVKTOS ' pestilence difficult to avoid' has been thought to refer to this event.50 Sources for this important period of Marcus Aurelius are anyway patchy, and authors show a certain reluctance to labour harrowing details of a

tragedy that was felt to reflect discredit on the emperors. Their tone of reticence is echoed by a modern writer,51 who argues that the severity of the epidemic is

usually exaggerated. The more serious impression formed by earlier com- mentators 52 seems amply confirmed by the far-flung archaeological evidence. Recent research calls attention to epigraphic evidence from Southern Arabia of 'un fl6au qui ne pouvait etre qu'une epid6mie foudroyante ',53 identifiable with the pestilence of Marcus Aurelius. There are echoes of the epidemic from distant China.54 One of the great physicians of all time, Galen of Pergamum, lived through the disaster, and has described the symptoms of the sufferers.55 No doubt as a specialist he concentrated upon unusual complications, but his

descriptions convey to the layman the impression of smallpox; and that this

explanation is correct has been maintained by medical authorities.56 Galen himself suggests that the scourge of his time was similar to the plague described

by Thucydides. But since modern opinion interprets that description as of

typhus,57 it may rather be that Galen was studying the first contact with small-

48 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Veri, viii, 2-3 : ' Fuit eius fati ut in eas provincias per quas rediit Romam usque luem secum deferre videtur. Et natur fertur pestilentia in Babylonia, ubi de templo Apollinis ex arcula aurea, quam miles forte inciderat, spiritus pestilens evasit, atque inde Parthos orbemque complasse'.

49 Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Vita Veri, xiii: (at Rome) ' Tanta autem pestilentia fuit ut vehiculis cadavera sint exportata sarracisque ... et multa quidem milia pestilentia con- sumpsit multosque e proceribus, quorum amplissimis Antonius statuas conlocavit'.

50 J. Keil and A. von Premerstein, Berichte iiber eine Reise in Lydien, Wien, 1908, p. 9, no. 16. 51 J. F. Gilliam, ' The plague under Marcus Aurelius ', American Journal of Philology, LXXXII,

1961, 225 if. Contra F. Millar, A study of Cassius Dio, Oxford, 1964, p. 13, n. 4. 52 B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on ancient history, II, London 1852, 53. 53 A. Loudine and J. Ryckmans, 'Nouvelles donnees sur la chronologie des rois de Saba et

Dii-Rayddn ', Le Musion, LxxvII, 3-4, 1964, 415 and 419 (a reference I owe to Dr. A. K. Irvine). 54 F. Hirth, China and the Roman Orient, Leipzig, 1885, 175, quoting the Hou Han shu. 55 The formidable bulk of Galen's surviving writings, 20 volumes in the standard edition, has

been an embarrassment to those seeking a complete evaluation of his evidence on this point, scattered as it is amongst discussions of other matters. A useful selection is that of H. Haeser, Historisch-pathologische Untersuchungen, Dresden and Leipzig, 1839, I, 69-75. It may suffice to quote from De methodo medendi, v, 12 (= vol. x of the standard edition) :

icKarTa rv izeyav ToroV vAotlv, 6v E, 7 &'ITOTr lTavacaOaGt, wpT3-rov Eflafl.ov-ra.

TO'E VEaaVaKO$

TLg

EVwaTaoS LO aeVO7EV

AKeatV oAov o' aw-lpa, KaOa7TrEp Kal ol •aot aXEaOv awravTES ol aWOVTEs. E'v TrovTr 5 Kat V 7PTEJ7lTTE fpaxea. Tr -' aTrepatq Aovaa/eLEvos! aVtc'Ka 'v ~fE fl-qc ~opo'TV, av77vE X7- S' a fIE7a T?7S P'X-r ,

- 7V O VOfLaOV Cd V o EqzEKL'aa.

58 E. W. Goodall, A short history of the epidemic infectious diseases, London, 1934, 53. 57 Sir William MacArthur, 'The Plague of Athens', Bulletin of the History of Medicine,

xxxii, 1958, 245-6.

HARITI AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE KUT.AkAS 21

pox of the unprotected populations of Europe. Comparable would have been the situation when the virus was imported into Mexico in 1520, and 3,500,000 deaths resulted.58 The role of the Kusana Empire in such a catastrophe is evident enough. The focus of smallpox infection during the second century A.D. was no doubt in South Asia, as at the present day. If our dating of the Skdrah

Dheri image to A.D. 136 is correct, the epidemic was already growing in the reign of Kaniska. Within a few years the infection would have been reaching pandemic proportions, and the numerous Hariti images of Gandhara would thus reflect the growing desperation of the Buddhist devotees. Soon the virus was launched along the caravan routes of the silk trade, and on its way to the harbours of the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. It would not be surprising that the Romans encountered it at Ctesiphon in A.D. 165. By this time it is reasonable to suppose that the hey-day of the Mature style in Gandhara, which includes so many Hariti figures, would be nearing its close. This belief is reinforced by the date of A.D. 163 obtained for the Buddha of Loriyan Tangai. It has even been said that the Great Pestilence of A.D. 166 brought on the decline of the fine arts in the Roman world,59 and indeed began the political decadence and depopulation of the Roman Empire. If there is truth in this view, the damage to the civiliza- tion of the Kusanas can hardly have been less. An explanation appears for their sudden military collapse at the beginning of the third century, and the

rapid advance of the Sasanians to the Indus. The erosion both of its economic basis, and of its corps of sophisticated craftsmen, by the epidemic could well have

brought the sculpture of Gandhara to the sudden end which the short chronology suggests. Vasudeva, last of the Great Kusanas, is often mentioned at Mathura, but there is no Gandhara work which can yet be attributed to his reign. Thus the ravages of Hariti, for all the damage that they inflicted upon ancient society, may still provide the archaeologist with a reliable synchronism by which to check his chronology of Gandhara art.

58 W. R. Bett, A short history of some common diseases, Oxford, 1934, 5.

59 J. H. Middleton, The Lewis collection of gems and rings, Cambridge, 1892, 23.