azes era

[Guest guest]

{I reserve my comments - Kishore patnaik )

 

 

A new discovery and a new problem

Kushan chronology has recently been upset by the discovery of an

inscription dated in two eras. Though the full inscription is still

unpublished (Salomon, forthcoming), the text of its translation is

available (Senior, 2003). The 'Greek era inscription' (insc. 23),

written in Kharoshti on a reliquary reads as follows:

In the twenty-seventh - 27 - year in the reign of Lord Vijayamitra,

the King of the Apaca; in the seventy-third - 73 - year which is

called 'of Azes', in the two hundred and first - 201 - year of the

Yonas (Greeks), on the eighth day of the month of Sravana; on this day

was established [this] stupa by Rukhana, the wife of the King of

Apraca, [and] by Vijayamitra, the king of Apraca, [and] by Indravarma

(Indravasu?), the commander (stratega), [together] with their wives

and sons.

This is a hugely important inscription. It means that for the first

time we have clear evidence that a 'Greek' era was used in Kharoshti

inscriptions. It also gives a way of calculating the era, take the

Azes era (58 BC by convention) and subtract 128 years (186 BC give or

take a year). However, a number of Kushan specialists have tried to

apply this new date and feel it does not fit well with the date of 127

AD proposed for the era of Kanishka I. They would like to adjust by

about 10-15 years. One answer would be to abandon the date of 127 AD,

which is compatible with the present understanding of the date of

Kanishka. However, for scholars who take Kanishka's date to be fixed

at 127 AD, a more controversial approach has been suggested: move the

Azes era.

The Azes Era

" Azes I ... was the founder of an era, and this era can be associated

with reasonable certainty with one that later came to be known as

Vikrama, on chronological and archaeological grounds " (Salamon, 1998: 182)

The statement by Salamon is probably a fair reflection of the

confidence that most scholars before the recent publication placed on

the equation Azes = Vikrama = 58 BC. At a recent symposium at Oxford

the suggestion of moving the Azes era was proposed. Curiously, while

everyone 'knew' the Azes era was the Vikrama era, no-one could

actually recall evidence for this equation. It is clear that the date

has to be close to 58 BC (a number of inscriptions in the era can be

roughly dated) and everyone could recall that there had been articles

(notably by Bivar & Fussman) which settled the matter in the late

seventies, and early eighties.

Puri (1977: 27-9) attributes the theory that the Azes era was one and

the same as the Vikrama era to John Marshall. Marshall (1914: 973)

attributes the idea to Fleet. An examination of Fleet's articles in

the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1907: 1023, 1913: 1000,

1914: 797) shows that he actually proposed the basic principle that

inscriptions should be fixed to known eras where-ever possible.

Marshall took this principle and the Gondophares (insc. 353) and

Panjtar (insc. 359) records which he knew had to be contemporary with

the early Kushans, subtracted the dates (103 and 122) from the middle

of the first century AD and got an answer roughly in the middle of the

first century BC. He then attributed this to the Vikrama era which was

close. Further, he published the Silver Scroll from his excavations at

Taxila (insc. 360) and correctly read 'ayasa' as Azes. From this he

argued that the Kharoshti documents were dated in an era founded by

the Indo-Parthian Azes and that for the sake of argument this era

should be considered equivalent to the Vikrama era. He concluded by

saying (on the subject of the actual era date):

" ... the identity of the era of Azes and the Vikrama era can hardly be

regarded as fully established, and to my mind, it is quite possible

that the era of Azes will be found to have commenced a few years

earlier or later than 58BC " (997)

Curiously it was not the dating of the Azes era to 58 BC which

attracted the greatest criticism. Instead, critics attacked Marshall's

suggestion that the era was named Azes from Konow (1929:lxxxv),

through Lohuizen (194 :chapter 1) and Basham (1953), and as recently

as the 1960 London conference (Narain: 196) it had been strongly

argued that the Azes era did not exist. These scholars suggested that

the word 'ayasa' could not refer to the king Azes and must simply be

an appellation of the month or other minor variation on the dating

formula. The insinuation was that the Azes era did not exist. Freed

from the constraint of linking the kharoshti inscriptions to Azes I

these authors proposed various alternative dates (under the name 'Old

Saka Era'), mostly earlier than 58 BC (Konow 84 BC, Narain 88 BC,

Lohuizen 129 BC).

Consultation with Bivar's article 'The Azes Era and the Indravarma

Casket' proved enlightening. Bivar never justifies the date of 58 BC.

Rather he is concerned to demonstrate that an era associated with Azes

actually existed. In the historiographical tradition elucidated above

this makes perfectly good sense. The Indravarma casket did demonstrate

clearly that tge Azes Era was real, and not a figment of Marshall's

imagination. What it did not do was demonstrate that the link Azes =

Vikrama = 58 BC was sound. In essence Marshall's warning quoted above

still held good. Despite this, from the eighties onwards the date of

the Azes era was taken as a given. Exactly why is unclear, but perhaps

simply because the demonstration that Marshall had been right about

the name of era lent weight to his opinion on the date.

It is now an opportune moment to examine the problem which this debate

had been intended to solve...

Kharoshti Inscriptions

Insc. Date Insc. Date

341 58 168 134

342 60 360 136

345 68 560 157

344 68 559 157

23 73 361 168

346 78 362 187

347 81 364 191

351 100 409 200

352 102

353 103

356 111 569 303

357 113 410 318

358 117 415 359

359 122 423 384

558 127 432 399

The Kharoshti Inscription SequenceThe table on the left shows a

selection of dated Kharoshti Inscriptions excluding those of the

Kushans. The inscriptions, are ordered simply by their date, and can

be seen to provide a coherent sequence. Not as complete as the Kushan

sequence (some gaps are as large as 19 years) but still very clearly a

sequence. What will be noticed is there is a gap of at least one

hundred years (some authors make it larger as they do not accept the

dating of all the inscriptions from 150 to 200). Also, a small number

of these inscriptions are clearly marked (in green here) as being in

the Azes era. Two odd inscriptions are marked (one clearly stating it

is in the era of Moga, and the dual dated inscription mentioned above,

given in the table as its Azes date).Two solutions to this sequence

have previously been proposed. One is to date the entire sequence

according to one era (57 BC, 83 BC, 88 BC, 129 BC). The substantial

gap is then filled with the Kushan era, which runs to between 100 and

140 years in this region.The other solution is to date the

inscriptions in two sequences. One, the Azes era the other the Greek

(150 BC,155 BC, 158 BC, 170 BC, 186 BC, are various suggestions). This

solution assumes that the high dated inscriptions actually represent a

shift to a new era (the same era as Vima Taktu's central Asian

inscriptions [insc. 500 & 508] of 279 and 299) and the gap is the

dislocation produced by that shift.Our new evidence shows clearly that

the first solution is impossible. And while it shows some form of the

second must be true it also shows that previous relationships between

the era's have been incorrect (positing as they do a gap of 90 - 110

years, as apposed to the 128 we now know to be the case). The new

evidence also introduces extra problems. If the Greek era supplanted

the Azes during the conquests of Vima Taktu (Greek era c.280, end of

the first century AD) as is commonly presumed, then why is the dual

dated inscription so early, in fact at the start of the sequence? And

if the Greek era was used alongside the Azes for nearly a century,

then the gap which to be explained by the shift from one era to the

other should not exist?The problems that need to be answered about the

Kharoshti sequence are therefore:· In what year did the era of Azes

commence (it follows from this that the year of the Greek era will

then be known)?· Which inscriptions are dated in the Azes era, and

which in the Greek era?· What is the era of the Moga inscription, and

is it unique, or are other inscriptions to be dated in this era?· By

what mechanism is the substantial gap (year 200 to 303) to be

explained?· Are the high dated inscriptions, year 303 onwards, to be

dated in the Azes era, the Greek era, or some other era?· How do the

dates of the Kharoshti inscriptions relate to the anomalous high dates

from Mathura (see below)?How do the dates relate to the Central Asian

dates of Vima Taktu?

The Vikrama Era

The Vikrama era begins in 58 BC. We know this because a very late

text, Meratunga's Theravali gives a story of how King Vikramaditya

expelled the Sakas from Ujjain and established the era, and gives a

formula for calculating the Vikrama era from the Saka (Majumdar,

1951). The term Vikrama is fairly late, and was not the original

appellation of the era. Before the ninth century the Vikrama era was

known as the Malwa era. This Malwa era can be traced to a group of

inscriptions of the fifth century, found to the south of Mathura in

Rajasthan. These inscriptions include the word 'Krita' and this allows

them to be linked to a group of inscriptions dated 295, 284, 282 (ie

the first half of the third century) from the same region. This is

where the trail stops. These are the oldest inscriptions known with

certainty to be dated in the era of 58 BC.

The problem with the Azes inscriptions being dated in the same era is

that there is no continuity. The Azes era seems to stop in use in the

north-west by the year 200 (possibly earlier), and then the Krita era

begins in Rajasthan, a considerable distance away nearly a hundred

years later. There is therefore, no tangible link between the

Kharoshti dates, and the sequence which came to be known as Vikrama.

Interestingly there are several anomalous high-dated inscriptions at

Mathura (insc. 333, 32 & 334) dated in the years 270, 280, 299. These

have in the past been attributed either to the Kushan period, and are

considered to be dated in the Greek Era and precede Kanishka, or to be

dated in the Gupta era and follow the Kushan period. The first

explanation looks plausible for 334 which mentions royal titles, but

implausible for 32 which uses the epithet 'sakya' for a Buddhist Nun.

On the other hand the Gupta dating has never been very convincing,

even for Luders who first proposed it. Of course, it is possible that

different explanations apply to the inscriptions and their similarity

in date is simply a co-incidence.

An alternative explanation is that these three dates are Krita dates,

transferred from Rajasthan to Mathura in the period 217 AD to 246 AD

(in the reigns of Vasudeva and Kanishka II). And thence from Mathura

to Gandhara where our first date 303 corresponds to 249 AD (and the

reign Vasishka). This would then explain the late inscriptions of

Gandhara as being in the Krita (Vikrama) era and would provide a

possible explanation for the large gap (the displacement of the Azes

era by the Kushan, and its further displacement by the Krita).

Unfortunately, this explanation, like the Gupta or Greek assignment of

these three inscriptions is unsatisfactory. It is raised here to show

that there are a considerable number of possibilities in any

explanation, and that there is more anomalous data to explain than

some surveys often make clear.

The Greek (Yona) Era

One method of solving the problem is to establish the start date of

the Greek era. This can then be used to establish the Azes era using

the relationship above (Great Year = Azes + 128). Unlike the

Azes-Vikrama equation there is no known era which provides a good

candidate for the Greek. So it is necessary to establish the Greek

era's start date by some other method.

One that has been suggested is to establish which Greek ruler

instituted the era and thus date its inception. A new source may be

discovered which gives information about the inception of the Greek

era but at the moment no such source is known. Without such a source

there are two serious objections to this method. Firstly, the Bactrian

kings cannot be accurately dated so even if one can be identified as

the founder this would not date the era any more accurately than it is

already. Secondly, the motivation in founding an era and the reasons

that private individuals choose which era to use are not understood.

So there is no reason for preferring any Greek King over any other for

the start of the reckoning. Given these two objections it seems absurd

to try and guess at the foundation of an era in the absence of any

evidence. Even if the second objection could be overcome the first is

fatal; both eras can already be linked to kings whose reigns are known

as accurately as those of the Greek Kings of Bactria.

The only effective method of establishing the starting date of the

Geek era is to find a date in that era that can be linked to a date in

another era. Either, by finding a source (like insc. 23) which has

dates in two eras (but unlike 23, in which one of the eras is known).

Or by finding an inscription in the era which can be linked to some

person or event which is already firmly dated.

There are very few such inscriptions. The only Kharoshti inscription

which is certainly dated in the Greek era is the dual dated

inscription 23. No method of distinguishing inscriptions in the Greek

era has yet been established. What are required are inscriptions knwon

to be dated in the Greek era, that can be fixed by some method other

than the date. One group are the Central Asian inscriptions of Vima

Taktu, written in Bactrian and dated 279 and 299 [insc. 500 & 508].

Unfortunately Vima Taktu's dates are known only roughly. He was

succeeded by Vima Kadphises and then by Kanishka. Kanishka is the

fixed point in this discussion, though his date is not known

accurately. However it can be said that it is now agreed Kanishka

falls in a fairly narrow range of dates c.120 AD. An additional point

of uncertainty is the length of Vima Kadphises reign (though evidence

still unpublished indicates it might be quite short). So while no

accurate date is possible it is reasonable to place Vima Taktu in the

late second half of the first century AD (and possibly into the second

century). If we subtract from c.90 AD (a guess) the value 279 we

arrive at c.190 BC. From which we get an Azes era of roughly c.62 BC

(give or take the uncertainty already mentioned).

The Azes Inscriptions

King Azes Era Date

Gondophares, Kajula? 103

Un-named 122

Un-named 136

Vima Taktu 151 (279)

Vima Taktu 171 (299)

Vima Kadphises (insc. 362) 184/7

We will now proceed to do the same things with the Azes inscriptions.

Three of these are relevant; Insc.353 (azes 103) 359 (azes 122) & 360

(azes 136). The first is dated in the reign of Gondaphares, and may

mention Kajula. The second two are in the reigns of unnamed Kushan

kings. They belong to the reign of Kajula, or (less likely) to the

early reign of Vima Taktu (because they proceed the inscription dated

year 279). On the left all these dates are converted into the same era

(the Azes).Using this sequence it is possible to calculate the Azes

era (using any of the four kings mentioned) in much the same way that

was done with the Greek era above. It points to the same basic

conclusion that the date is in the middle of the first century BC.

However, the margin of error is still quite considerable.

Conclusion

I have not supplied an answer to the problem of the Azes date. That,

of course, wasn't the intention. The purpose was to survey a problem

that is central to problems of Kushan Chronology, and that will not

yield to simple answers. It is possible that a much more detailed

study might yield a solution, or that fresh evidence might resolve

some of the problems. A combination of both has reduced the margin of

error on the Kanishka era to less than the margin of error on the

Azes. This is why the Azes rather than the Kanishka era is likely to

be the focus of chronological debates in Kushan studies in the next

few decades, the uncertainty is now greater and thus its solution more

profitable. I have already outlined what the problems are that need

solving. Perhaps it will be useful in conclusion to outline what is known:

· There is an Azes era, used in the Kharoshti inscriptions

· Contemporary with the Azes era are the Moga and the Greek eras,

though it is not clear how many inscriptions (it may only be a

handful) use these eras.

· Some, or all of these eras, remained in use for some time after the

Kushans conquered the region. The old assumption that only one era was

in use at any one time, often used to affect solutions, is untenable.

· The Azes era cannot be dated later than 30 BC or earlier than 80 BC

and still be compatible with the present Kushan chronology.

· The Azes era may well be identical with the 58 BC

Krita/Malwa/Vikrama era but scholars will have to establish that

synchronism independently.

 

Notes

There is a simple rule of thumb in epigraphy (and source criticism in

general) that if everyone agrees on what an inscription says then

nobody really cares. Of the six datings given here only one is

undisputed; that of Vima Taktu to 279, because it doesn't conflict

with anyone's theory. Of the others it is disputed if insc. 353 names

Gondophares or his successor Gondophares-Sases, and if 'erjhuna kapa'

is, or is not, Kajula. In the case of both the unnamed Kushan kings

(insc. 359 & 360) it is a source of controversey which Kushan king is

referred to. The reading of 299 on insc. 508 by Harmatta is seriously

doubted. And a debate on whether insc. 362 should be dated 184/7 in

the Azes era or 284/7 in the Greek era has raged for nearly a century.

It is therefore wise to be cautious about readings based on single

inscriptio

[Guest guest]

-

>

> A new discovery and a new problem

 

 

(I have forgotten to post the web site address which has been supplied

by Yashwant- Kishore patnaik)

 

For related articles by the same author (Robert Bracey) see:

 

http://www.kushan.org/contents.htm

 

The formatted version of the article can be seen at

 

http://www.kushan.org/essays/chronology/azesvikrama.htm

 

Yashwant