Ancient History of the Deccan c3.s4: § 1. The Kshaharáṭas
Ancient History of the Deccan c3.s4
- Language
- English
§ 1. The Kshaharáṭas
c3.s4.1
To understand the history of the Deccan in the 1st century B. C. and the first two centuries A. D., we must know the history of the whole of India at this epoch; but that history is very uncertain even today; and we do not wish to force a theory upon our readers but intend only to set forth our personal opinion on this subject.
c3.s4.2
In the II century B. C. the Śaka tribe that came from the north entered into Northern India; from that time they were intimately connected with another tribe, the Parthians, and had close relationship with Persia. In the history of India, the names of Śakas, Pahlavas and Yavanas are mentioned simultaneously and denote those foreigners that came from the north-western frontier. It is probably about 100 B. C. that one of these princes reigned at Taxila under the name of Maues. Later on, about 60 B. C., Azes. I ascended the throne. This king probably had a long and glorious reign. It was perhaps in his time that the Parthians and the Sakas conquered almost the whole of northern India and a portion of the Deccan. When the Indo-Parthian kings Azes I, Azilises, Azes II, Gondopharnes were reigning over the Panjâb, the rest of the empire was governed by more or less independent princes who bore the title of Kshatrâpas and Mahâkshatrapaa. In the province surrounding the Gulf of Cambay (Surâshtrs, Ujjain, Aparânta) there reigned the Śaka kings who were called Bhûmaka and Nahapâna. The Śakas called Hagâna, Hagâmâsha, Râjuvula, Soḍâsa, Kharahostes and Kalni reigned at Mathurâ in the valley of the Ganges. The Śakas (Bhûmaka, Nahapâna) that reigned over the country round the Gulf of Cambay (in Surâshṭra, Ujjain and Northern Deccan) belonged to the same family as the Śakas (Râjûvula, Soḍâsa) of Mathurâ; this family was that of the Kshaharatas. In fact, the Nâsik inscriptions say that the Śakas who reigned in Northern Deccan belonged to the dynasty of the Kshaharatas and, they have discovered in 1910-1911 at Gaṇêshrâ (3 miles west of Mathurâ, in mound No. 2 (See J. R. A. S., year 1912, p. 122) a fragment of an inscription (fig. II, plate II) which contains clearly the word "Kshaharatasa".
c3.s4.3
Professor Rapson, who discovered the existence of the name Bhûmaka on the coins, has written: "considerations of "the type and fabric of the coins, and of the nature of the coin "legends leave no room for doubting that Bhûmaka preceded "Nahapâna" (Rapson, coins of the Ândhra dynasty, page CVIII). These coins bear as insignia, either "the arrow, discus and thunderbolt" or "the Lion capital and Dharmachakra." "The "coins of Bhûmaka seem to supply an important link between "the bronze coins of Nahapâna and those struck conjointly "by the Pahlava Spalirises and the Śaka Azes" (J. R. A. S. for 1904, p. 372). The insignia 'Discus, Bow and Arrow' connect these coins with those of Azes I: "It may be compared (Rapson, page CVII) with the rev. type "Discus, Bow and Arrow" of certain copper coins struck conjointly by Spalirisez and Azes (Percy Gardner, B. M. cat., Greek and Scythic kings, Pl. XXII, 4; C. Nehr, 1890, Pl. VII, 13). On the other hand, the insignia Lion capital and Dharmachakra were those of the Kshaharatas of Mathurâ; and in particular the Lion pillar of Mathurâ is well known. We know that the Pahlava Spalirises and the Śaka Azes were kings of Arachosia and Sistân. Azes I reigned in the Panjâb and it would not be impossible that he founded the Vikrama era which begins in 58 B. C. "........he (Azes I) was reigning in the third quarter "of the first century B. C., while the probability that he may "have founded an era is also suggested by the abundance of "his coins, which denote his pre-eminence among the Śaka.
c3.s4.4
"Pahlava sovereigns" (J. R. A. S. for 1914, page 177—"The date of Kanishka" by J. H. Marshall). We may therefore place the reign of Bhûmaka approximately in the second quarter of the first century B. C. (50 to 25 B. C.)
c3.s4.5
The coins bearing the name "Nahapâna" that were rare at one time have become abundant since the discovery of a treasure containing 13250 coins at Joghaltembhi, near Nâsik (see J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol. XXII, Art. XVI, page 223). This discovery has made a complete study of it possible. It must first be noted that this coinage extends over a very long period of time. It is not possible to give the exact number of years but it is certainly very large. In fact, we may observe very clearly a certain "evolution" in the style of the coins. For instance, these coins contain two legends one in Greek and the other in Kharoshthî, but these two writings evolve inversely: when the legend in Kharoshthî is very legible, that in Greek is debased, and on the coins in which the Kharoshthî legend is debased the Greek legend is visible. Such an evolution can be produced only during a very large number of years. We know that with the lapse of time, Kharoshthî disappeared, little by little, from the coinage of India (see J. R. A. S. for 1904, page 373.) Here I have to make another important remark. These coins bear an effigy which surely is not that of a single individual, since the nose is sometimes aquiline and sometimes straight. Further, the most ancient coins represent sometimes a young man, and sometimes an old man, as is the case also with the less ancient coins. "The Rev. H. R. Scott has pointed out that they exhibit an extraordinary diversity, not only in apparent age but also in features. They cannot possibly have been portraits, in the true sense of the word of, any single individual" (Rapson, page CX). What conclusions are we to draw from these remarks? We cannot say it exactly. It is possible that many kings called "Nahapâna" have reigned in succession. But we may also suppose that there were only one or two Nahapânas, but that, after them, they have continued to use their coinage for a long time. The latter hypothesis will explain the extraordinary diversity in the effigies; the most ancient coins bear the image of the Nahapâna that reigned at this epoch and the less ancient ones contain the image of some figure made to vary according to the fancy of the coiner.
c3.s4.6
The coins struck in the name of Nahapâna resemble much those of king Râjûvula (see the plate facing the page 630 of J. R. A. S. for 1913). This is quite natural as Nahapâna and Râjûvula both belong to the Kshaharâta dynasty. But there is an epigraphical detail which proves well the relationship that exists between the coinages of the two branches of this very Kshaharâta dynasty: "......... the letter H found on a coin of Kharahostes and on some of those of Nahapâna......" (J. R. A. S., 1913, page 1013). Concerning the origin of this letter H we shall be content with giving here the opinion of Mr. Thomas (J. R. A. S., 1913, page 1013, note): "I think this H to be not Roman, but Aramaic (it is no accident that it is found only on Śaka-Pahlava coins)".
c3.s4.7
The coins bearing the name of Nahapâna contain the insignia "thunderbolt" and "arrow". Mr. Vincent A. Smith has written ("Early History of India," 3rd. Edition, page 218): "The arrow and thunderbolt of Nahapâna's coins connect him with the Parthians and the Northern Satraps Hagâna and Hagâmâsha (see Cat. coins in I. M., Vol. I., page 195)". And Nahapâna is a good old Persian name (J. R. A. S. for 1906, p. 211, No. 17.)
c3.s4.8
A Kshaharâta king named Nahapâna is found mentioned in several inscriptions engraved on the rock-cut excavations in Mahârâshtra, viz. at Kârli, Nâsik and Junnar. These inscriptions say that the daugther of Nahapâna named Dakshamitrâ, married a Śaka (Ep. Ind, Vol. VIII, p. 85) called Ushavadâta (Rishabadatta) son of Dinika (inscriptions Nos. 1132 and 1134 of Lüders's list.) This princess and her husband made numerous gifts to the Buddhist monks and had many roc-cut monasteries dug for them. Some of these grants were made at Pokhara (Ajmer) and at Ujêni (Ujjain) which proves that the dominion of Nahapâna extended over an immense empire comprising Guzarât (Kutch, Surâshtra, etc.), a part of Râjputânâ, Mâlwâ (Ujjain) and all the northwestern part of the Deccan (Mahârâshtra).
c3.s4.9
We may often estimate the greatness of empires by the beauty of their monuments. It is therefore probable that the reign of Nahapâna was very glorious, as some of the monuments constructed during his reign are among the most splendid in India. One of these is the Buddhist temple cut in the rock at Kârlî, the immense nave of which equals in grandeur that of the Gothic churches. It is noteworthy that the monuments containing the inscriptions of Nahapâna (at Junnar, Kârlî, Nâsik) are all in the same style. This style resembles much that of the balustrade of the grand stûpa at Sâñchi. We have already said that this balustrade was probably begun between 70 B. C. and 60 B. C. It must certainly have taken a sufficiently long time to build, for, the style of the sculptures shows that the gateways may be arranged chronologically in the folowing order: (1) Southern, (2) Northern, (3) Eastern (4) Western, (Archæological Survey of India; Report for 1913-14, page 9.) It is therefore probable that most of the sculptures of Sâñchi date from 50. B. C. to 1. A. D. and that the monuments containing the inscriptions of Nahapâna have been sculptured shortly before the beginning of our era.
c3.s4.10
Many of these inscriptions are dated; we have at Nâsik (No. 1133 of Lüders's list) the years 41, 42 and 45. At Junnar an inscription (No. 1174 of Lüders's list) that records a grant of Ayama (Aryaman), minister of Nahapâna, give us the date 46. A reign of 46 years is rare; we may therefore suppose that these 46 years are not counted from the year of the coronation of Nahapâna but from the beginning of a particular era. This supposition seems to be confirmed by some other documents. We know that the satraps of Mathurâ belonged to the dynasty of Kshaharâtas and that one of them Râjûvula (Ranjubula) struck coins similar to those of Nahapâna, and we may suppose that they were contemporaries. The son of this Râjûvula named Śoḍâsa has left an inscription in Mathurâ (No. 59 of Lüders's list) dated in the year 72 [Âmohini record]. Here there can be no doubt. Here it is question of the year 72 of a particular era, for, it is improbable that Śoḍâsa reigned 72 years. Moreover, Mr. Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar has affirmea (page 275, Vol. XX of Vol. XX of the Journal of the Bombay branch of the Royal Asiatic Society) "I maintain that on similar palæographic grounds Nahapâna must be supposed to be prior to Śoḍâsa" and we find a complete justification of this opinion in his paper ('A Kushan stone inscription'). Thus Palæography proves that the inscriptions of Nahapâna which are dated 41, 42, 45, 46, are more archaic than the inscription of Soḍāsa which is dated in the year 72. As these two princes belong to the same family of Kshaharâtas (J. R. A. S. for 1912 p. 122) and the coinage of Nahapâna resembles that of Râjûvula, father of Soḍāsa, it is natural to suppose that Nahapâna and Soḍāsa dated their inscriptions from the same era. What can this era be? It is generally admitted now that the inscription of Soḍāsa is dated from the Vikrama era which begins in 58 B. C. If, then, the Vikrama era was no other than the Kshaharâta era, the inscriptions of Nahapâna at Nâsik and Junar will be dated in the years 17, 16, 13 and 12 B. C. These dates perfectly agree with the facts furnished by archæology. We have said that the art of the monuments of Nahapâna at Kârli and Nâsik resemble that of the grand Stûpa at Sâñchi. It must be noted now that the art of the monuments of Nahapâna differs much from the art of the epoch of Kaṇishka. The discovery of the casket in which Kaṇishka locked up the relics of Buddha has proved, that in the time of Kaṇishka, Buddha was represented with the head adorned with an aureole and the body dressed in a robe with long folds. It is thus that Buddha is very often represented at Amarâvatî. We see nothing like it in the monuments of Nahapâna. It will be too long to give here a detailed history of the evolution of the Hindu art; we shall content ourselves with saying that we can approximately determine the age of the sculptures from the ornamentation and the style. We think it is useless to take up this question again, since we have already developed this theory at great length in Vol. I of our work, "Archæologie du Sud de l'Inde", Vol. I, Architecture. In the course of a series of tours that I made in the Deccan in 1910 - 11, I collected photographs of the principal monuments in this region and particularly those of Kârli and Nâsik. Illustrations intended to support the theory developed in chapters I & II, (pages 15 to 49) of the book will be found in plates I to IX. That theory is the following: there is a difference between the monuments that are anterior to the Christian era and those that are posterior to it. The monuments of Nahapâna at Nâsik and Kârli are of the same family as the stûpa at Sâñchi and are anterior to Jesus-Christ. On the contrary, the sculptures of the epoch of Kanishka, those of the tope at Amarâvati, the caves of Gautamiputra at Nâsik and of Yajña Śri at Kaṇhêri are posterior to Jesus-Christ and are characterised by a very particular kind of ornamentation.
c3.s4.11
In short, the coinage, palæography and the style of the monuments prove, that, at the beginning of the Christian era there reigned on the shores of the Gulf of Cambay one or more princes bearing the name of Nahapâna. A Nahapâna who had Ushavadâta for his son-in-law reigned in the years 41, 42, 45 and 46 of an unknown era. There reigned in Mathurâ some princes of the same dynasty of Kshaharâtas. These princes were: Hagâna, Hagâmâsha, Râjûvula, Soḍâsa Kharahostes and Kalni, and they used a special era. If it is admitted that it is the Vikrama era (58 B. C.) we find that Soḍasâ reigned in 14 or 15 A. D. which well coincides with the information furnished by archæology (it is the opinion of the Director-general of Archæology, Mr. J. H. Marshall, see J. R. A. S. for 1914, page 986). The coins show that Nahapâna was very nearly the contemporary of Hagâna and Hagâmâsha and so it will be a little before the beginning of the Christian era. This is in perfect accord with the supposition that the inscriptions of Nahapâna are dated from the Vikrama era. However, "the question has not been settled" (Vincent A. Smith, the Oxford History of India, 1919, page 153, footnote 1).
c3.s4.12
Who succeeded Nahapâna or the Nahapânas? It is probable that about the year 20 A. D., Gondopharnes, king of the Panjâb, became master of a great empire that extended all over the west of India; he conquered Arachosia, Sind and the country near the mouth of the Indus; the successors of Nahapâna were probably simple governors of provinces. On the death of Gondophares this empire was parcelled out into petty principalities. The Panjâb fell into the hands of his nephew Abdagases; Arachosia and Sind passed under the rule of Orthagnes who was followed by Pakorès [concerning Orthagnes, see Gardner, page 109, Pl. XXIII, 9; concerning Pacores, see gardner, page 110, Pl. XXIII, 8]
c3.s4.13
The "Periplus of the Erythraean Sea" gives a description of this region at it was at that time. The date of this work has been determined recently by Mr. J. Kennedy (J. R. A. S. for 1918, page 106). The Periplus mentions Malichas who lived in 67 A. D. and died in 71 A. D. It is therefore probable that the anonymous author of Periplus went on his travels about the year 70 A. D. The Periplus gives a description of the valley of the Lower Indus, which he called Scythia "which is governed, however, by Parthian princes, who are perpetually at strife among themselves expelling each other" (Periplus, Ind. Ant. Vol. VIII, page 138). This description applies perfectly well to the state of Sind after Gondophares. The Periplus mentions two princes of the northern part of the Deccan: the king of Barygaza (Bharukacha=Broach) whose name ends in "bares" (Kennedy, J. R. A. S. for 1918, pages 108 and 113—"Nambanos-Nahapāna is a myth") and the king of Kalliena (Kalyan) who was called Sandanes who was hostile to the foreigners.
c3.s4.14
Cave No. 3 at Nâsik contains an inscriptions (insc. No. 2.—see Ep. Ind. Vol. VIII, page 61, and Lüders's list No. 1123) which is well-known for the information that it gives. We learn that the king Gautamiputra Śrī Śātakarṇi "destroyed the Śakas, Yavanas, Palhavas, rooted out the Kshaharāta race and restored the Śātavāhana family."
c3.s4.15
The inscription says further that Gautamiputra Śrī Śātakarṇi was king of the following countries: Asika, Asaka, Muḷaka, Suraṭha, Kukura, Aparanta, Anupa, Vidarbha, Ākarāvanti. Since these countries once formed part of the kingdom of the Kshaharātas, we may conclude that Śātakarṇi took possession of them after the destruction of the Kshaharātas (Suraṭha=Surāṣṭra=Kāṭhiāwāṛ; Ākaravanti=Mālwā; Aparanta=the region along the coast, north of Bombay.)
c3.s4.16
The destruction of the Kshaharātas by Gautamiputra is fully confirmed by the coinage; in fact, out of 13250 coins bearing the name of Nahapāna that were discovered at Joghaltembhi, there are 9270 that have been re-struck by Gautamiputra. The re-striking of the Kshaharāta coins by Gautamiputra is for us a very valuable information, for, we may then know for certain what kind of coinage the Śātavāhanas had at the time of the destruction of the Śakas. The obverse bears the "Ujjain symbol" and the reverse the symbol "chaitya".
c3.s4.17
From the fact that all the coin re-struck by Gautamîputra bear the name "Nahapâna", certain authors have come to the conclusion that it was Ushavâdata own father-in-law that was vanquished: "Gautamîputra ktlled Nahapâna". A closer examination of the coins proves exactly the contrary. Rev. H. R. Scott has made three observations: (1) that the coinage bearing the name of Nahapâna extend over a very long period, since it had the time to evolve considerably. (2) The effigies are of "extraordinary diversity" and "cannot possibly have been portraits, in the true sense of the word of any single individual" (Rapson, page CX). The first two remarks show that, very probably, the coins bearing the name of Nahapâna have not all of them come from the Nahapâna of the inscriptions so the coins containing the name of Nahapâna cannot allow us to draw any conclusion concerning the Nahapâna of the inscriptions. But the third remark is still more important. (3) "Judging from the condition of the coins, I should say that they must have been a very long time in circulation.........before.........being coun-ter struck" (J. B. B. R. A. S. Vol. XXII, page 224). The last remark shows that, *even if* we admit that the Nahapâna of the inscriptions has issued the *most recent* coins of the whole group, "a very long time" must have elapsed between him and Gautamîputra. That is the opinion of Mr. Vincent A. Smith (Early History of India, 3rd Edition, 1914, page 217): "It is not necessary to believe that Gautamîputra Ândhra fought with Nahapâna personally. Study of the great Joghaltembhi hoard of more than 13000 coins of Nahapâna proves that the coinage extended over many years, although always bearing the name of Nahapâna, who I believe was dead before Gautamîputra extirpated his family or clan". Bühler and Bhagwanlal believed that they could read in one of the Nâsik inscriptions that Gautamîputra made a gift of a field belonging "till to-day" (till then) to Ushavadâta. But M. Sénart (Ep. Ind. Vol. VIII, page 72) has proved that the word "ajakâlikiyam" means quite a different thing. Besides, the omission of Nahapâna's name in mentioning the destruction of the Kshaharâtas in the Nâsik inscription proves that Gautamiputra has not encountered this great king. All the inscriptions of Ushavadâta are in too archaic an alphabet for us to suppose that he was the contemporary of Gautamîputra. Again, in my work "Archéologie du Sud de l'Inde" Vol. I., I have shown by figure 19 (Vihâras of Nâsik) that the style of Nahapâna differs much from that of Gautamîputra; and these differences are due to time, since there is evolution of architecture [for instance the "bell-shaped" capitals have been replaced by the "pot shaped" ones. This transformation of the form of a bell into that of a sphere has needed at least one century]. Thus then, architecture and palæography perfectly agree with the coinage to prove that "a very long time" has elapsed between the Nahapâna of the inscriptions, and Gautamîputra, the destroyer of the Śakas.
c3.s4.18
§ 2. Chashtana, founder of the Śaka era.
c3.s4.19
During three centuries, Ujjain was the capital of a dynasty of kings whose genealogy begins thus:— Chashtana
c3.s4.20
Jayadâman
c3.s4.21
Rudradâman
c3.s4.22
Dâmajadaśri
c3.s4.23
Jîvadâman.
c3.s4.24
There is no room for doubting that Rudradâman, the representative of the third generation reigned in 130 A. D. Indeed, in 1905-06, Professor Dêvadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar (Archæol. Survey Western India-Progress Report for 1905-06, page 35) has made very important discovery of several inscriptions of Rudradâman dated in the 52nd year of an era which is incontestably (see J. R. A. S. 1899, page 365) the Śaka era (78 A. D); they are the inscriptions of Andhau in Cutch.
c3.s4.25
The text of the inscription is as follows: Râjña Châshtanasa Ysâmotikaputrasa râjña Rudradâmasa Jayadâmaputrasa varshe dvipachâśe 50, 2. (Progress Report, Archæol. Survey of India; Western Circle 1914-1915, 67).
c3.s4.26
As the same text is reproduced in many inscriptions, it must be considered correct and there is no room to think that a fragment of it has either been lost or accidentally omitted by the engraver. Since we know from various documents that Jayadâman was the son of Châshtana, the meaning of this text is certainly the following: "In the 52nd year, in the reign of Rudradâman, son of Jayadâman, grandson of Châshtana and great-grandson of Ysâmotika". This meaning has been accepted for the last 15 years. Very recently, however, Professor Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar (Dekkan of the Śātavāhana period, Ind. Ant., Vol. XLVII, part DXCVI., June 1918, page 154, footnote 26) has proposed a new interpretation. According to him the inscriptions will be dated in the common reign of Chashṭana and Rudradāman who would have reigned conjointly: "at first, I was inclined to supply "pautrasa" after Ysāmotikaputrasa and refer the date to the reign of Rudradāman (J. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. XXIII., page 68) Mr. R. C. Majumdar of the Calcutta University has kindly offered the suggestion that the date has better be referred to the conjoint reign of Chashṭana and Rudradāman". This interpretation is not possible: if here it was question of common reign of Chashṭana and Rudradāman, the text would be "Rudradāmasa cha varshe" or something else which will show that it was the reign of two persons; but here there is no possibility of any doubt; "Rājña Rudradāmasa Jayadāmaputrasa varshe" can mean only one thing: "the reign of Rudradāman". The inscriptions of Andhau are therefore dated in the reign of Rudradāman and in the 52nd year of the Śaka era which corresponds to 130 A. D.
c3.s4.27
We know (see Rapson, page CXXIV), that Jivadāman, the representative of the fifth generation, reigned (as Mahākshatrapa) in Śaka 100 which corresponds to 180 A. D. We may suppose that this king ascended the throne about 2 years before it, in 178 A. D. and we may attribute a reign of 23 years to his father Dāmajadaśri. We thus obtain the following chronology:—
c3.s4.28
Dāmajadaśri, acc. circ. 155 A. D.,
c3.s4.29
Jivadāman, acc. circ. 178 A. D.
c3.s4.30
I request the reader to note that this chronology is not something imagined by me : if we open the book of Mr. Vincent A. Smith "Early History of India" 3rd edition, we shall find a plate facing page 218, giving the chronology of Western Kshatrapas ; and we shall find there the same dates : Dāmajadaśri, acc. circ. 155 A. D.—Jivadaman, acc. circ. 178 A. D. I have therefore adopted the opinion of Mr. Vincent A. Smith which is certainly very near the truth.
c3.s4.31
We know the coins of Jayadāman as Kshatrapa, but coins of this prince bearing the title of Mahâkshatrapa have not been discovered so far. If therefore we admit that Jayadâman did not reign at all or reigned only for a short time, we can conclude therefrom that the reign of his father Chashṭana and his son Rudradâman have been long. But what is the duration of a long reign?
c3.s4.32
In the history of the Pallavas there is the example of king Nandivarman Pallavamalla who reigned for more than 62 years (Tâṇḍantôttâm plates, 58th year and Tiruvallam insc. No. 76 of 1889, 62nd year) and was succeeded by his son Dantivarman who reigned for more than 51 years (Tiruchchâṇûr insc. No. 262 of 1904, 51st. year). But such instances are rare and we shall admit that a reign of average length is one of 25 to 30 years and that a long reign may last from 35 to 40 years. So, if we allow that Jayadâman did not reign at all or reigned only a very short time and that the reigns of Rudradâman and Chashṭana were long, we get the following chronology:—
c3.s4.33
Chashṭana, acc. circ. 75 or 85 A. D.
c3.s4.34
Jayadâman (was living circ. 110 or 115 A. D.)
c3.s4.35
Rudradâman, acc. circ 115 or 120 A. D
c3.s4.36
Dâmajadaśri, acc. circ. 155 A. D.
c3.s4.37
The only objection that has been made to the above chronology is the folowing: "The inscriptions of Nahapâna are dated in the Śaka era."
c3.s4.38
It is certain that Chashṭana ascended the throne after the destruction of the Kshaharâtas; an examination of the coins proves it (see Rapson, page 72, Pl. X). When Chashṭana bore only the title of Kshatrapa (var. b; Pl. x: El and No. 259) and later on assumed the title of Mahâkshatrapa (Rapson, Pl. X., No. 260 and ff.)we find on the reverse of his coins the symbol "chaitya with three arches" identically the same as that of the coins restruck by Gautamîputra. The symbol "Chaitya with three arches" on the coins of Chashṭana proves incontestably that Chashṭana was a Satrap of Gautamîputra after the destruction of the Kshaharâtas.
c3.s4.39
If then the inscriptions of Nahapâna which bear the dates 41, 42, 45 and 46 are dated from the Śaka era and correspond to 119, 120, 123 and 124 A. D. we must admit that Chashṭana ascended the throne after 124 A. D.
c3.s4.40
This supposition clashes with difficulties which have been exposed by Mr. Rakhal Das Banerji in a paper entitled "Nahapâna and the Śaka era" in the "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society" for 1917, page 273.
c3.s4.41
We know that Chashṭana reigned first as a Kshatrapa and afterwards as a Mahâkshatrapa. We have the coins of Jayadâman only as Kshatrapa. So, these coins bear the "Chaitya with six arches" instead of the "Chaitya with three arches" which seems to show that Jayadâman reigned as a Kshatrapa for a sufficiently long time after the destruction of the Kshaharâtas. (Rapson, page 76, No. 265 to 268). But, if we admit that the inscriptions of Nahapâna are dated in the Śaka era, there will be only an interval of five years between the inscription of this king dated 46 and the inscriptions of Rudradâman dated 52. Within these years (years 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51), must have taken place:
c3.s4.42
(1) The end of Nahapâna's reign;
(2) The destruction of the Kshaharâtas;
(3) The accession of Chashṭana as Kshatrapa, his reign as Kshatrapa, his accession as a Mahâkshatrapa, and his reign as Mahâkshatrapa;
(4) The accession of Jayadâman as Kshatrapa, his reign as Kshatrapa, and perhaps also his reign as Mahâkshatrapa;
(5) The accession of Rudradâman and the beginning of his reign.
c3.s4.43
That all these events took place within five years, it is not impossible, but it is not probable. It is not probable that the Kshaharâtas were destroyed soon after the inscription at Junnar; it is not probable that the reigns of Chashṭana, first as Kshatrapa then as Mahâkshatrapa and of Jayadâman as Kshatrapa and perhaps also as Mahâkshatrapa have taken only four or five years; and it is not probable that Rudradâman ascended the throne exactly before Andhau inscriptions were engraved.
c3.s4.44
A rash guesser may be allowed to suppose that Rudradâman ascended the throne only four or five years after the end of the reign of Nahapâna. But for laying down such a supposition he must entirely disregard all information obtained from the archæology, numismatics, palæography and philology of India.
c3.s4.45
(a) Archæology shows that the architectural style, the ornamental design and the costumes of the personages of the epoch of Nahapâna clearly point to an archaic epoch very near the beginning of the Christian era and that it is impossible to place Nahapâna in the 2nd century A. D;
c3.s4.46
(b) Numismatics shows that Nahapâna was the contemporary of the Satraps, Hagâna and Hagâmâsha, that the coins of Nahapâna were in circulation for a very long time and a still long period elapsed before they were restruck by Gautamiputra;
c3.s4.47
(c) Palæography shows that the alphabet of the inscriptions of Nahapâna is more archaic than that of Soḍāsa and much more archaic than that of Rudradâman. To say that the inscriptions of Nahapâna are almost contemporaneous with those of Rudradâman and that there was only a five years' interval between the reigns of these two kings is to introduce a monstrous anachronism into the palæography of these inscriptions;
c3.s4.48
(d) Comparative philology shows that all the inscriptions of Nahapâna are in Prâkṛit whereas all the inscriptions of Rudradâman are in Sanskrit.
c3.s4.49
Upon the whole, we are not sure of the epoch of Nahapâna, but we are quite sure that the inscriptions of Nahapâna are not dated in the Śaka era ; and nothing prevents us from admitting that Chashṭana ascended the throne between 75 and 85 A. D.
c3.s4.50
But, then, can Chashṭana be the founder of the Śaka era, since the 1st year of this era corresponds to 79 A. D?
c3.s4.51
Some persons will say: "No, Chashṭana has not founded the Śaka era, because it was Kaṇishka that founded it." It is therefore necessary to take up the question of the date of Kaṇishka.
c3.s4.52
This question is perhaps one that has been very hotly discussed and though it is not yet completely settled, it is much more clear today than it was 10 years ago. After the skilful excavations of Mr. J. H. Marshall (see J. R. A. S.; 1914, pages 973-86; and 1915, pages 991-16), it is not possible any more to place Kaṇishka before the two Kadphisês.
c3.s4.53
Besides, the close resemblance existing between the coins of Kadphisès I. and those of Augustus and Tiberius does not allow any doubt in regard to the approximate age of Kujula-Kadphisès. As Fleet says: "We do not dispute in any way the view that at some time closely about A. D. 50, the sovereignty in the Kabul territory passed from the Greek king Hermaeus to the Kushan prince Kozoulo-Kadphisès, whose son Wèmo-Kadphisès then established a Kushan empire in Northern India" (J. R. A. S., 1913, p. 969).
c3.s4.54
We may therefore say now that it is certain that Kanishka did not come to the throne before about 75 A. D.
c3.s4.55
This date marks the earliest limit, but Kanishka might have ascended the throne much later. Very recently, a scholar (Ind. Ant, Vol. XLVI.—Part DLXXXVIII, page 261) thought that he had proved that the era founded by Kanishka was the Kalachuri era of 248 A. D. This is not possible. In fact, the reign of Vâsudèva, the last of the Kushâns, came to an end 100 years after the beginning of the reign of Kanishka. Numerous inscriptions prove that Vâsudèva reigned at Mathurâ. It is certain that this country over which extended the empire of Vâsudèva was occupied about 350 A. D. by the Yaudhèyas and the Nâgas and it is probable that they reigned in this place nearly one century before they were subjugated by Samudra-Gupta. The capitals of the Nâgas were Mathurâ, Kântipura and Padmâvati (or Pawèya, at the confluence of the Sindhu and the Para). We know the name of Sivanandi (Archæological Survey of India, for 1915-1916) who was a predecessor of Ganapati Nâga the rival of Samudra-Gupta. We have also coins of Ganapatinâga (Bühler's Grundriss, Ind. coins § 101, Pl. V, 2). Nâgasèna, heir of the house of Padmâvati, mentioned in Harsha-charita (page 221), (see J. R. A. S. for 1899, page 448), has been identified by Mr. E. J. Rapson with the Nâgasèna of the pillar at Allâhâbâd. We know also the coins (Ind. coins, § 101) of Prabhâkara (J. R. A. S. for 1900, page 117), of Skandanâga, of Devanâga (Cunningham, coins of Mediæval India, pp. 23 and 24) and of Bhimanâga (Progress Report Arch. Surv. Western Circle for 1914-15, page 60).
c3.s4.56
The Yaudhèyas were formidable at the time of Rudradâman; but the Girnar inscription tells us that they were
c3.s4.57
Lawrence P. Briggs, vanquished probably shortly before the year 150 A. D. It is probably after the death of Vâsudêva that they established themselves in the Mathurâ region. We have a stone inscription (Gupta Inscriptions, No. 58, Plate XXXVI, B) found at Bijayagadh [or Bêjêgaḍh, about two miles to the South West of Byânâ, the chief town of the Byânâ tahsil of the Bharatpur (Bhurtpoor) state in Râjputânâ] which has come to us from the Yaudhêyas and which enables us to know the geographical position of their empire. The alphabet of the inscriptions is intermediate between that of the last Kushâns and that of the first Guptas. We have also the coins of this dynasty (Cunningham, Coins of Anc. Ind. Pl. VI., 6-8); and the Yaudhêyas are mentioned in line 22 of the inscription on the pillar at Allâhâbâd (No. 1 of Gupta Inscriptions). The invasion of Samudragupta took place in the middle of the IV century. If we take nearly one century as the duration of the reigns of the Yaudhêyas and the Nâgas, we find that Vâsudêva ceased to reign before about 250 A. D. and that Kaṇishka came to the throne before about 150 A. D.
c3.s4.58
So the accession of Kaṇishka should be placed between 75 A. D. and 150 A. D.
c3.s4.59
We know that Kaṇishka founded an era and we have just seen that he came to the throne between 75 and 150 A. D. Can Kaṇishka be the founder of the Śaka era which begins at the end of 78 A. D.? I believe that this hypothesis is not probable for the following reasons :
c3.s4.60
(1) If we admit that Kujula-Kadphisês and Hermœus reigned about 50 A. D. and that Kaṇishka founded the Śaka era in 78 A. D., we have scarcely 28 years for the duration of the end of the reign of Vima-Kadphisês (I) and the whole of the reign of Kujula-Kadphisês (II). It is probable that Kadphisês I. reigned long and died when he was about 80 years old. Secondly, the reign of Kadphisês (II) was probably very long (at least 40 years); that is the opinion of Mr. Vincent A. Smith : "No definite proof of the length of his reign can be given, but the extent of the conquests made by Kadphisês II. and the large volume of his coinage are certain indications that his reign was protracted. Cunningham assigned it a duration of forty years." (Early History of India, 2nd Ed. page 239, foot note 1).
c3.s4.61
Again, it is not certain that Kanishka was the immediate successor of Kadphisês II.
c3.s4.62
So, it is not possible that Kanishka should have come to the throne in 79 A. D.
c3.s4.63
(2) We do not know exactly in what era are dated the inscription of the year 103 of Gondophares and the inscriptions of the years 113 and 122 of the Kushâns; if we suppose that it is the Vikrama era, the dates agree so well with all the information furnished by history, palæography, and the coins, that most of the savants have accepted this hypothesis. For example, the year 103 of this era being the 26th year of Gondophares, he must have come to the throne in 19 A. D. And Gondophares uses the title "autocrator" which was introduced by Augustus and adopted by the Parthian king Phraates IV (8 to 11 A. D.). Mr. Marshall has discovered at Taxila (J. R. A. S., for 1914, pp. 973, 978) in the "Chir Stûpa" a document dated 136, which, in the Vikrama era, corresponds to 79 A. D., and the king mentioned therein is probably Kadphisês I, but certainly not Kanishka (see "Taxila insc. of year 136" by Sten Konow, in Ep. Ind. Vol. XIV., pp. 284 to 288). This discovery is enough to shake the conviction of those that attribute to Kanishka the era of 78 A. D.
c3.s4.64
(3) Mr. Sten Konow has shown recently (Ep. Ind., Vol. XIV., pages 141 and 290) that the Tibetan and Chinese documents tend to prove that Kanishka reigned in the 2nd century and not in the 1st.
c3.s4.65
(4) The scholars who thought that Kanishka founded the era 78 A. D. believed also that he introduced in India the Græco-Buddhistic art in all its splendour. But when the reliquary bearing an inscription of Kanishka was discovered, one might expect that this work of art chiselled under the pious orders of the great king would be a splendid work of Greek art. Alas! The sculptures are deplorably inferior in workmanship and undoubtedly represent an art in full decadence. A further attentive study of the art of Kanishka has shown that this king did not reign certainly in the 1st century.
c3.s4.66
(5) Mr. Sten Konow has shown recently (Ep. Ind. Vol. XIV., page 141) that the inscriptions of the Kanishka era and those of the Śaka era are not dated in the same fashion: "It becomes impossible to maintain that Kanishka was the founder of the Śaka era and used it in his inscriptions because then it becomes unintelligible why he should have changed the way of expressing the dates”.
c3.s4.67
We shall therefore conclude that Kaniṣka is not the founder of the Śaka era.
c3.s4.68
The preceding lines had already been written when I had the honour of receiving from Mr. Vincent A. Smith a copy of “The Oxford History of India,” Oxford, 1919, and I read in page 127 : “It may now be affirmed with confidence that the order of the five leading Kuṣâṇ kings is finally settled, and that the uncertainty as to the chronology has been reduced to a period of forty years in round numbers or to state it otherwise, the question is, “Did Kaniṣka come to the throne in A. D. 78, or about forty years later?”. When the third edition of the “Early History of India” was published in 1914, my narrative was based upon the working hypothesis that Kaniṣka’s accession took place in A. D. 78, although it was admitted to be possible that the true date might be later. Further consideration of the evidence from Taxila now available leads me to follow Sir John Marshall and Professor Sten Konow in dating the beginning of Kaniṣka’s reign approximatively in A. D. 120, a date which I had advocated many years ago on different grounds”.
c3.s4.69
Since the Śaka era was not founded either by Nahapâna or by Kaniṣka and as Gautamiputra also was not the founder of it (no one has made this supposition), there remain but two hypotheses : that the Śaka era was founded either by Chasṭana or by Kadphisês II. The latter opinion is held by Dr. Sten Konow who has written recently “I am still of opinion that the Śaka era was established by Vima-Kadphisês”. (The Ara inscription, in Ep. Ind., Vol. XIV., p. 141).
c3.s4.70
For such a theory to be possible, Kadphisês II must have reiged in 78-79 A. D. We may believe that the inscription of the “Chir Stûpa” at Taxila is dated in the 136th year of the era which begins in 58-57 B. C. and the date 136 falls precisely in 78-79 A. D. And if we study the inscription of the “Chir Stûpa” and ask ourselves who is the king therein mentioned, we are rather inclined to reply: “It is an inscription of Kujula-Kadphisês (I)” : “So far as I can see, there cannot be much doubt that the Kuṣaṇa Emperor of the Panjtâr and Taxila records was Kujula-Kadphisês and not Vima-Kadphisês" (Ep. Ind. Vol. XIV Part VII, July 1918, page 289. "Taxila inscription of the year 136" by Sten Konow). It is not therefore probable that (Vima) Kadphisês II reigned in 78-79 A. D.
c3.s4.71
But even granting that Kadphisês II. reigned in 78-79 A. D. it has to be proved that he founded an era. We have not even a single document that can make us believe that Kadphisês II has founded an era. On the contrary, if the "Chir Stûpa" inscription is dated 78-79 A. D., it will be proved that the Kushân Kings used after A. D. 78 the era 58-57 B. C.; and finally, granting that Kadphisês II. founded an era, it must be proved that this era was adopted by Chashtana or his descendants.
c3.s4.72
After all, the theory of (Vima) Kadphisês II having founded the Śaka era is not based either upon any proof or even indication.
c3.s4.73
There remains then but one hypothesis: "The Śaka era was founded by Chashtana". This theory was expressed 30 years ago by Cunningham (see N. chr. 1888, p. 232 and 1892, p. 44) discussed notably by D. R. Bhandarkar (B. B. R. A. S., Vol., XX page 280) and was afterwards completely abandoned.
c3.s4.74
I now wish to assert boldly that this abandonment is quite unjustified. This theory has been slighted because for 30 years the historians of India have had two preconceived notions: (1) that the inscriptions of Nahapâna are dated in the Śaka era. (2) that the Śaka era was founded by Kanishka. I think I have proved that these two suppositions are now untenable.
c3.s4.75
I affirm that the only natural theory concerning the Śaka era is that it was founded by Chashtana.
c3.s4.76
It is admitted on all hands that the dynasty of Chashtana has used the Śaka era; and it is but natural to suppose that the founder of the dynasty was also the founder of the era used by it. Outside the kingdom of Chashtana and his descendants, not a single inscription has been found which is dated in the above era. In fact the inscriptions of the Kushân kings are not dated from the Śaka era and the inscriptions dated from the same era which are found in South India are all posterior to the fall of the dynasty of Chashtana. Thus then all the Śaka inscriptions that are anterior to 400 A. D. are every one of them inscriptions of the dynasty of Chashtana. The era is therefore special to that dynasty.
c3.s4.77
If we are not quite sure that Chashtana was a Śaka, there is no doubt that he was of foreign origin. The names of the members of this family show that they were foreigners. Mr. Rapson says (page CXXI) : "Ghsamotika is Scythic"; "shtana (in Châshtana) is a Persian termination"; and (page CXXII) Dâmaghsada "foreign name, may possibly be an attempt to express the Persian Zâda, a son".
c3.s4.78
A general of the W. Kshatrapas is mentioned in an inscription (Progress Report, Arch. Survey, Western India for 1917-1918, page 37) as being a Śaka.
c3.s4.79
Were Chashtana and his descendants themselves Śakas? It is possible; but one thing is certain, that in ancient India they were designated by the name of Śakas. The Matsya Purâna mentions a dynasty of 18 Śakas which is probably that of Chashtana; but there can be no doubt in certain cases: for instance, Bâna in circ. 630 A. D. has written ("Harsha charita" trans. Cowell and Thomas, page 194) : "In his enemy's city, the king of the Śakas, while courting another man's wife, was butchered by Chandra-Gupta".
c3.s4.80
To sum up :
c3.s4.81
(1) It is certain that all the dates that are given in the documents of the dynasty of Chashtana are of the Śaka era.
c3.s4.82
(2) We do not know of even a single inscription anterior to 400 A. D. which is dated in the Śaka era and belongs to a dynasty other than that of Chashtana.
c3.s4.83
(3) Tradition has given the name of Śaka to the era beginning in 78 A. D., since it was the era used by the descendants of Chashtana who in ancient India were designated by the name of "Śaka."
c3.s4.84
(4) The most ancient inscriptions (Andhau) are dated in the year 52 of this era; and they are the inscriptions of the grandson of the founder of the dynasty. If the founder of the dynasty was also the founder of the era, it is quite natural that the grandson should have reigned 52 years later.
c3.s4.85
Therefore, the most simple, the most natural and the most logical theory consists in saying: "The Śaka era of 78 was founded by Chashtana",
Linked texts (9)
- Matsyapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
- Harṣacarita — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit
- Epigraphia Indica
- Indian Antiquary
- Sāñcī
- Nāsik
- Junnar
- Gaṇēshrā
- Karli