History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Naga–Vakataka Imperial Period c22: Appendix E. Paikuli Sassanian Inscription (293/4 A.D.) and its Bearing on the Vākāṭaka Period of Indian History
History of India, c. 150 A.D. to 350 A.D.: Nāga–Vākāṭaka Imperial Period c22
- Language
- English
Appendix E. Paikuli Sassanian Inscription (293/4 A.D.) and its Bearing on the Vākāṭaka Period of Indian History
c22.2
The (Kurdistan) Paikuli Inscription, edited by Prof. ERNST HERZFELD in Forschungen Zur Islamischen Kunst (Series No. III) under the title PAIKULI MONUMENT AND INSCRIPTION OF THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE SASSANIAN EMPIRE (in two volumes), Berlin, 1924, has a bearing on the period of Indian History discussed above. It refers to the Ābhīras, the lord of Avanti, ‘Satraps’, and the Kúshán king.
c22.3
The inscription was discovered by Sir Henry Rawlinson who made an eye-copy of it in 1836. It was edited by Thomas in his ‘Early Sassanian Inscriptions, Seals and Coins’ (JRAS., 1868). Prof. Herzfeld undertook several journeys to Paikuli and recognized that it was a bilingual record. His work could only be published by the generosity of Sir Dorabji Tata and through the kind interest of Prof. Browne of Cambridge. Out of gratitude to them the German scholar has published his work in English.
c22.4
The inscription was engraved by the order of King Narseh, and the subject is the war between him and Varhrán III.
c22.5
Pápak, son or descendant of Sásán, flourished as a vassal chief near Shíráz whose son Ardashír became the founder of an empire and assumed the title of Sháhánsháh i Érán (emperor of Erán) on April 28th, 224 A.D., on the defeat of the Arsacidan suzerain Ardaván. On the eastern side of his empire he included therein Khorásán, with the result that the Kúshán Sháh, the next neighbour, amongst others, sent his envoy to declare his allegiance. This account is taken from Tabarí, which stands confirmed by the coins of Pápak and his son Sháhpuhr, elder brother of Ardashír I, and of Ardashír I (originally published by Thomas and Cunningham; Paikuli, i, 36). Ardashír’s son, Sháhpuhr I, ruled in 241–272, who called himself ‘Emperor (King of kings) of Érán and non-Érán (anérán)’. The next sovereigns Hormizd I (272–273) and Varhrán I (273–276) were short-lived. Varhrán II (276–293) was greatly harassed (283 A.D.) by the Roman Emperor (M. Aur. Carus) and by the rebellion of his own brother Hormizd in the east (289 A.D.). On the death of Varhrán II a dynastic war broke out (293 A.D.) between Varhrán III (son of Varhrán II) and his grand-uncle, Narseh. Narseh proved successful and reigned from 293 to 302 A.D. in which year he was succeeded by his son Hormizd II (302–309 A.D.).¹ The Paikuli Inscription relates to this dynastic struggle of 293 A.D.
c22.6
¹ After him the succession is: Sháhpuhr II (309–379); Andhar Narseh (309); Ardashír II (379–383); Sháhpuhr III (383–388); Varhrán IV (388–399).
c22.7
In this civil war the ‘lord of Avanti’ [Avandikán avatávya] took the side of Varhrán III. And according to the inscription, ‘all kinds of Satraps’ (Sátrap gónak gónak) congratulated the new king (Narseh) on his victory. So also congratulated him ‘the king of the Ábhíras’ [Abírán Šáh].
c22.8
It is noteworthy that these princes are ‘all enumerated as independent princes’ (Herzfeld, p. 43). Prof. Herzfeld’s surmise that they had been subject to the Sassanian throne up to the war is not supported by the inscription. Had they been subject, they would not have been treated as independent by the victorious emperor. They had aided as mere allies their neighbour Varhrán III who had been governor and ruler of Sistán. The German scholar has been influenced by the unproved theory of Dr. Vincent Smith of a supposed ‘unrecorded’ Sassanian invasion of India [Sindh, the Punjub, etc.].
c22.9
I cite below the passages having bearing on India from the Paikuli Inscription. The text is bilingual—Pársík and Pahlavík; where the original text is given the language is indicated by (Pr.) or (Ph.) In line 24 we read:
c22.10
‘straight to the country of Asúristán they do not ‘come……with that army come together……own……
c22.11
‘Sakánsháh (i.e. the rival of Narseh), and Vahunám ‘until....TANDY, and by (?) them (25) the lord of ‘Avanti [Avandik(á)n vat(á)vya, (Ph.)]¹ the Sakán- ‘sháh, and Vahunám......TRAN I arrive’ (pp. 105, ‘107).
c22.12
¹ The Pársik text has decayed here.
c22.13
It is thus clear that the lord of the Avandikán was a chief ally of Varhrán (III) the Sakánsháh. Line 29 says that Vahunám was captured and bound and was brought on a donkey (after being paraded) to the royal Porte.
c22.14
Lines 44 to 47 enumerate the kings and rulers who recognized the new king (pp. 117, 119) after the victory—an event which may be dated in or about 294 A.D., the year following the battle. The text is as follows:
c22.15
‘And the king of the Kúshán [Kuš(á)n ŠĀH-(Ph.)] ‘....., ‘and to us the Caesar [Késare-(Pr.)], and the Roman ‘[hróme-(Pr.)]²...
c22.16
² Read ‘the Roman Caesar’s’: ‘and’ in the text is wrong.
c22.17
‘(45).....(42) and the king of Khwárizm, and Zámásp the...pat of the Kúshdán, and Dígpambak(?) ‘[the..., and Sayyidí, the Shaikh of the Arabs [Harváník ‘(Pr.), Arváník (Pl.)], and Pak, the eunuch, and Béruván, ‘son of (?) Spandorát, and the king of the Páradán, and ‘Varáĕgurt the king, and the king of Žand-Afrík, and the ‘king of Makúrán, and X. the king of....., and Tírdát the ‘king, and ’Amru, the descendant of the Abgars,......and ‘the king of Ábhíra [Ábírán ŠĀH -(Pr.)], and Síká-......
c22.18
‘(46).....(43’) .....—VRYN YPPT that their ‘BYTAK......—satraps of all kind, (Vará)zgirde, the lord ‘[Xvatáy (Pr.) xvatávya (Pl.)] of the Sakhúričán, and Khvar- ‘asmán, the lord of the Mókán, and Bagdát, the lord of ‘the Zúrádián, and MitrÁLasén, the [lord of the] Bóraspičín, ‘and Bátí, the lord of the Zúradatčín, and X. the lord ‘of the [Ap]réšumičán, and Márwak [the lord of] the ‘Ishtakvín, and......the lord of the Térakhčín, ...
c22.19
‘(47).....the lord [of the...], and the other princes ‘......our instruction they become, and the whole Empire
c22.20
anew (?) I wish (?) (or: they congratulated me) and some came personally to our Porte, others envoys. . . . PAKR . . . . . ., and by(?) him the Empire, and the place. . . . . ., and to our service they come. . . . . .he holds, on him [they] say. . . . . .End.'
c22.21
The Kúshán Sháh who is put on par with the Roman Kesar (Cæsar) was the Kushan king. The word KÚSHÁN in the inscription has been treated as a territorial unit; evidently the dynastic name (after the name of the first king Kushana) gave the territorial designation of Kúshán to the Balkh-Badakshan region. The Kúshán Sháh here must be the Kushan emperor, to be mentioned even before the Roman emperor. The group of kings headed by these two emperors (lines 44-45 of the Pārsík text, and lines 41-42 of the Pahlavík text) are undoubtedly independent kings.
c22.22
It is noteworthy that the Abírán Śáh or the king of the Ābhīra country is in that list of kings. We know that the first Ābhīra king—Īśvarasena—founded the Ābhīra kingdom about 240 A.D. (§164 above). The Ābhīras before him were republican (§164). They appear again as republican in 350 A.D. in Samudra Gupta's time. The Ābhīra king in 293-294 A.D. was thus one of the descendants of Īśvarasena whose records are dated in his own royal years and not in the Śaka era. The Ābhīra king up to 294 A.D. was an independent sovereign ruling over a part of Aparānta (insc. at Nāsik) and the neighbourhood. He must have sent his envoy to Narseh like other kings (line 48). In the reign of P r a v a r s e n a I (284-344 A.D.) who is followed by Samudra Gupta, the Ābhīra kingdom must have been suppressed, evidently soon after 294 A.D.
c22.23
The king of the Pāradán is the king of the Pāradas of Sanskrit or Pāladas of Aśoka. I have shown elsewhere¹ that these Pāradas were a northern nation, in north Afghanistan, and their modern representatives are the Bārad-zái. The existence of a king of the Pāradas in 293-294 A.D. proves that the community ceased to be republican which they had been in the days of Aśoka, and that the Pārada king was independent and not under the Kúshán Sháh, who thus does not seem to have had the whole of Afghanistan under him.
c22.24
¹ IA, 1933, p. 121, ('Places and Peoples in Aśoka's Inscriptions').
c22.25
The second group of ‘all sorts of Satraps’ is taken by Prof. Herzfeld to be an Indian group. He identifies them (‘twelve’) as Indo-Scythians. He is mostly influenced by V. Smith’s view that Kathiawād and the territories upwards were under the Śakas up to the reign of Chandra Gupta II. He also identifies the lord of Avanti as a Śaka Satrap. When Prof. Herzfeld counts 12 Śaka Satraps, he evidently includes in them the lord of Avanti and the king of the Ābhīras, for the ‘Satraps of all kind’ text has only 10 rulers. The view that the group of the Satraps is all Indian is not accurate; nor can the Ābhīra king come under the Indo-Scythian class. But a few of them are certainly Indian.
c22.26
The lord of Zúrádián is certainly the lord of the Surāṣṭras, as pointed out by Prof. Herzfeld (p. 43). The Surāṣṭras had been republican in the time of Kauṭilya. Soon they came under the imperial rule of Chandra Gupta Maurya and Aśoka. Then they came under Rudradāman who was elected by them their king about 150 A.D. In 293-94 A.D. they are under a ruler (xvatavya, not necessarily a ‘Satrap’) whose name BAGDAT may be identified as BHAGADATTA or BHAGADĀTA. Now we know all the Kshatrapa names from 150 A.D. to 332 A.D.—in practically an unbroken succession (Rapson, C. A. D., cliv-clvii), and no name having the slightest approach to Bhagadatta is found in that list. Prof. Rapson has pointed out in connection with the name ĪŚVARADATTA, that the DATTA-ending is foreign to the Kshatrapa family (p. cxxxiii). Surāṣṭra had been the seat of the Western Satraps. The appearance of Bhagadatta in Surāṣṭra in 294 A.D. confirms the conclusion already advanced in our History (§§81, 164) that Surāṣṭra had been won back from the Western Satraps before the Gupta time. Bhagadatta seems to belong to the confederacy of the Ābhīras, cf. the name ‘Ābhīra Śivadatta’. The Saurāṣṭras are described as a republican community at the rise of Samudra Gupta by the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, that is, they had been so in the time of the VĀKĀṬAKAS also (§82). It is likely that this Bhagadatta was a republican chief, which is evidently suggested by the Paikuli term ‘all sorts of Satraps’. If they had been only of the class of ‘Saka’ Satraps such a description was not needed. The description is constitutional; several constitutional classes of independent, though small, rulers are intended.
c22.27
Prof. Herzfeld identifies Mókán as the district around Quetta. Its lord was Khvarasmán. The learned scholar thinks that MitrAlasén (the lord of Bóraspićín) was a Śaka Satrap. But the Śaka Satrap at the time was Mahākshatrapa Bhartṛdāman (289-295 A.D.) with his Kshatrapa Viśvasena (294-304) and his predecessor was Viśva Simha (Rapson, p. clvi). We have a total absence of the Mahākshatrapa’s family in the Paikuli list. It is thus evident that they were not free to have diplomatic dealings and they must have been represented by the Kúshán Sháh. The independent Indian sovereigns mentioned in the list were Hindu rulers, who at the time existed, according to the Purāṇic data, in Avanti, Abhira, and Surāshṭra (§§ 73A, 74, 81 145 ff.), probably forming a confederacy. MitrAlasén may be a leader of ‘the Three Mitra’ Republics (Pushymitra, Paṭumitra, and Padmamitra), and Bóraspićín is probably from Vāravatī, capital of the Vāravatya Yādavas who were near Valabhī, and whose rulers bore the title of Pushpa.., according to the Mañju-Śrī-Mūlakalpa (ch. 53, p. 625).¹ It is not possible to identify any of the other names as Indian, except perhaps MARWAK as MĀLAVAKA, which is discounted by the unknown Ishtakvín.
c22.28
¹ > Pushpa-nāmo tato proktā Vāravatyāṁ purobhavah |
c22.29
The data of Paikuli admirably confirm the Purāṇic data for 293-294 A.D. The date falls within the first ten years of the Vākāṭaka imperial time under Pravarasena I. We have noted above (p. 87) that the province of Malwā, where these free communities of the Avantyas and the Mitras had been ruling, seems to have been acquired about 300-310 A.D. by the
c22.30
Valabhyāṁ *****
anantā nṛpatayo proktā Yādavānām kulodbhavāḥ |
Cf. AMMK., p. 604 were Vāray(v)atyāḥ are Yāt(d)avāḥ.
c22.31
Vākāṭakas as their over-lord. Just before that they appear to be absolutely independent. It must have been they and the Saurāṣṭras who drove the Śaka Satrap out of that part of the country. The Purāṇic history of the Abhīra kingdom (rise about 248 A.D., § 164, p. 170 above) stands confirmed by Paikuli which records the Abīrán Śáh as an important sovereign in 293-294. Their appearance in the time of Samudra Gupta (350 A.D.) as a republic shows that under Pravarasena I the Abhīra monarchy came to an end, about 300-310 A.D., when the Province of Malwa came under the Vākāṭaka House. Their individuality was preserved in the form of their republican government. This history leaves no room for a Śaka Satrap in Koṅkaṇa, Kathiawāḍ, Gujarat, and Malwā in 293-300 A.D. The Śaka had been pushed out to Cutch-Sindh before 293 A.D.
c22.32
THE KUSHANS AND THE SASSANIAN EMPIRE.
c22.33
Certain Sassanian coin-legends, and titles, noted by Muhammadan historians, throw light on the condition of the Kushan emperors in the Bhāraśiva-Vākāṭaka period. The former were already available from Cunningham and other numismatists, and the latter have been collected from literary sources by Prof. Herzfeld, who has prepared the following chart exhibiting the titles (I have inserted K. before the names of kings):
c22.34
[From the Paikuli Inscription, p. 51.]
c22.35
Pāpak Shāh, about 200–220.
c22.36
K. Sháhpuhr, Shāh, † previous to 224. Sháhpuhr, harkapati † after 294.
c22.37
K. Ardashír, Sháhánsháh, 224–241.
c22.38
K. Sháhpuhr I, Sháhánsháh, 241–272. Ardashír, Kirmánsháh. Narseh, Vispuhr i Sásénakán, † after 294. Péróz, Vazurk Kúshánsháh, Vispuhr i Sásénakán, † after 294.
c22.39
K. Hormizd I, Vazurk Kúshánsháh and Sháhánsháh, 272–273. K. Varhrán I, Vazurk Kúshánsháh and Sháhánsháh, 273–276. K. Narseh, Sháhánsháh, 293–302. Pápak Mihrán, bítákhsh of Georgia, 265–342.
c22.40
K. Varhán II, Vazurk Kúshánsháh and Sháhánsháh, 276–293. Hormizd, Ormies.
c22.41
K. Varhrán III, Sakánsháh, and Sháhánsháh, 293. K. Hormizd II, Sháhánsháh, married daughter of Kúshánsháh, 302–309.
c22.42
Adharnarseh; Hormisdas; Sháhpuhr Sakánsháh; K. Sháhpuhr II, Sháhánsháh, 309–379; K. Ardashír II, Budh-Ardashíránsháh, and Sháhánsháh, 379–383.
c22.43
K. Sháhpuhr III, Sháhánsháh, 383–388. K. Varhrán IV, Kirmánsháh, and Sháhánsháh, 388–399.
c22.44
The rise of Ardashīr, the first Sassanian king (224-241), falls in the Bhāraśiva period. Before his rise the Bhāraśivas had already driven the Kushans from the Gaṅgā-Yamunā Doab, that is, Ardashīr found the Kushan emperor weakened and he took advantage of it. According to Tabarī, Ardashīr took away Khorāsān but according to the Armenian historian whom Nöldeke prefers, his empire did not include Balkh. In any case, he did reach the borders of the Kushan home-province and exercised some sort of superiority over it. He seems to have threatened to invade the Indian dominions of Junāh who opened negotiations from Sirhind (§38, p. 50). But it is not until the time of Hormizd I (272-275) that the Sassanian king calls himself GREAT (Vazurk) KUSHANSHAH in addition to SHAHANSHAH, which is repeated by Varhrān I (273-276) and Varhrān II (276-293). This title is given up by Narseh (293-302), though temporarily revived by Péróz some time after 294 A.D. The title denoted over-lordship on the Kushans. In 302-309 A.D., Hormizd II married the daughter of the Kushan king (Kábul Sháh) and the Kushan position improved.
c22.45
Thus from 272 up to 292, for 20 years, the Kushans got the protection of the Sassanian king and assumed the position of a vassal king. In that period the Bhāraśivas and after them Pravarasena I would have operated against the Kushans in India. After 293 A.D. they must have been more pressed by Prāvarasena, who may be regarded to have broken their power in India, whereon the Kúshánsháh shifted himself into Kabul. The Sassanians were hard-pressed by the Romans and could not be of assistance to the Kushans. The final suppression of the Kushans, who revived in 302-309, is to the credit of Samudra Gupta and Chandra Gupta II. There does not seem to be any room in history for a conquest of the Sassanians over North-West or Western India. That the Sassanian rule extended over Sistān is proved by their title SAKANSHAH and is confirmed by Kālidāsa who places the Pārasikas next to Sindh in the invasion of Raghu: sthala-vartmnā, through the Bolān Pass, as opposed to the sea-route from Aparānta to East Persia.
Linked texts (2)
- Bhāgavatapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
- Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa — Sanskrit