The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c30.104

v1.c30.104

Even the fundamental question whether the inscription is dated or not is still in dispute. Some scholars contend that a passage in the sixteenth line can only be interpreted to mean that the inscription was engraved in the 165th year of the Maurya kings, or of the Maurya king, while others deny the existence of any such date¹. The discussion of problems of this kind does not fall within the scope of the present work; but it may be pointed out here that the acceptance of the supposed date would seem to involve no chronological impossibilities, and that, in any case, the inscription probably belongs to about the middle of the second century B.C. We know from analogous instances that the origin of imperial eras is usually to be traced to the regnal years of the founder of the empire. A Maurya era, therefore, would naturally date from the accession of Chandragupta c. 321 B.C.; and, if such an era is actually used in the present instance, the inscription must be dated c. 156 B.C., and the beginning of Khāravela's reign c. 169 B.C. With this hypothetical chronology other indications of date seem to agree.