The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s8.18

Language: English

c8.s8.18.1

The initial date mentioned by Albiruni is thus consistent with everything with which it has been thought to be not consistent. I have shown that the statement of the Arabic writer is in itself entitled to our confidence, being based, as it must have been, on contemporary evidence, as his statements about the S'aka and Vikrama eras were. I will now show that the date mentioned by him is alone consistent with the information we possess as regards the relations of the several dynasties that ruled over Gujarât and Kâthiâwâd in the early centuries of the Christian era, and the dates proposed by General Cunningham and Sir E. Clive Bayley are not. We know that the Guptas succeeded the Satraps, and the Valabhîs were at first dependents of the Guptas and afterwards attained independence. Chandragupta II. must have been the Gupta prince who overthrew the Satraps, since he is the first prince of that dynasty whose silver coins are a close imitation of those of the Satraps. The latest date of that monarch is 93. This corresponds to 260 A.D. and 283 A.D. on the supposition that the Gupta era took its start in 167 A.D. and 190 A.D. respectively. Now, the latest date of the Satrap dynasty is 304. If the era to which it refers is the S'aka, it corresponds to 382 A.D., that is, we shall have to suppose one of the princes of the dynasty to have reigned about a hundred years after the dynasty had been put an end to by Chandragupta II. The S'aka era will therefore not do.

c8.s8.18.2

Supposing the Satrap dates refer to the Vikrama era, 304 corresponds to 248 A.D., which of course is consistent with Chandragupta's date 260 A.D. or 283 A.D. If then the Satrap dates refer to the era of Vikrama, Rudradâman's 72 must correspond to 16 A.D. Rudradâman's grandfather Chashtana will have to be placed about B.C. 4. But Ptolemy, writing after 150 A.D., tells us that Ujjayinî was ruled over about the time when he wrote by Tiastenes, who has been very reasonably identified with Chashtana. Ptolemy's information cannot certainly be 150 years old. It has, however, been argued that Ptolemy does not state that Tiastenes reigned about the time when he lived, and that he and Siro Polemios were contemporaries. For, he gives the information in the form of two short notes, "Ozone, the royal residence of Tiastenes," and "Baithana, the royal residence of Siro Polemios." Such notes it is possible that one should write even if the princes reigned several hundred years before him, as a modern geographer may mention Berlin as "the capital of Frederick the Great," or Ghizni as "the capital of Mahmud." As to this I have to observe that the analogy does not hold good. A modern geographer and his readers are very well acquainted with past history, while neither Ptolemy nor those for whom he wrote could have known the past history of India.

c8.s8.18.3

A modern geographer knows which of the princes that ruled over a certain country in past times was the ablest or most powerful, and selects him out of a number and mentions his name in connection with a certain place. It is extremely improbable or almost impossible that Ptolemy should have known many Indian princes who reigned before he lived, along with their achievements, and should have chosen the ablest of them for being mentioned. And, as a matter of fact, we know that one at least of the rulers mentioned by him could be a person of no importance. For Baleocuros who according to him held power in Hippocura was, as we have seen, but a Viceroy or dependent of Pulumâyi and Gotamîputra Yajña S'ri, since as Vilivâyakura his name occurs along with those of the two princes on the Kolhâpur coins. Again, Ptolemy must have derived his information from merchants carrying on trade with India and these from the natives of the country. And we know that natives of India care very little for past history and soon forget their kings. Hence the information derived by the merchants cannot have reference to princes who reigned long before the time of Ptolemy. It is possible that Indians may remember a celebrated prince for a century or two. But, as stated above, one of the rulers mentioned by Ptolemy was but a dependent sovereign and could not have been a man of note.

c8.s8.18.4

The only other supposition that our opponents may resort to, is that Ptolemy's statements were based on those of previous geographers whose contemporaries the princes mentioned by him were. No ground whatever has however been adduced in support of such a supposition. In the Periplus which was written before Ptolemy, Paithana and Ozene are mentioned, but Polemios and Tiastenes are not. On the contrary, the author of that work says that Ozene was "formerly the capital wherein the king resided." If Tiastenes lived before him, and Ptolemy's mention of the former was due to his having been a prince of note like Frederick the Great and Mahmud of Ghizni in modern times, we should expect the author of the Periplus to have noticed him, especially when he does allude to the kings of Ozene. Tiastenes, Polemios and Baleocuros must thus have reigned about the time of Ptolemy. The last two were, we know, contemporaries, and so also must the third have been.