Gupta, we hear of Shakas and Pahlavas (the reference is regarding Shāhis and Shahāmishāhis, whom I regard to be Pahlavas), but we do not hear of Yavanas. Shakas, Yavanas, and Pahlavas[1] are mentioned together by Gautamīputra in his inscriptions, as early as 113 A. D.; thus the period of the close association of the names of these foreigners falls within 113-350 A. D.
We now come to Lichchivis. The Gupta dynasty which prided itself on their descent from Lichchivi on the mother's side rose into importance in 320 A. D. After that date, to put down Lichchivi as a Vrātya tribe was not possible.
We want a period when all that our text wrote regarding Andhras, Shakas, Yavanas and Pahlavas was possible, and such a period cannot be any other than 227-320 A. D.[2]
The author's home.—This is not hard to determine. There is a good deal of evidence to show that the writer was a Brāhmana of Magadha. He manifests a good acquaintance with this region, and very little with
- ↑ A confusion hangs over the names Shaka and Pahlava. Whether the dynasty of Western Satraps were Shakas or Pahlavas cannot be very definitely told, but this confusion need not disquiet us for the present. We know for certain all we care to know, that Shakas an Pahlavas existed in India for a long time, side by side, probably since 78 A. D., and the period of this close association falls between 113-350 A. D.
- ↑ Burnell's introduction to his translation contains an argument on the date and place of our text. The faulty character of these arguments is well shown by Hopkins in the foot-notes Hopkins has summed up and criticised the argument of Burnell again in PAOS., May, 1885. He concludes that Burnell brings us not one step fearer the solution of the problem. Hopkins has examined the discussion on the date by Bühler. He thinks Bühler's conclusions probable but not absolutely proven by the arguments given (PAOS, May, 1887).
