Ancient History of the Deccan c3.s4.17

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.