The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c30.106

v1.c30.106

Epigraphical considerations show that the Hāthīgumphā inscription of Khāravela and the Nānāghāt inscription of Nāganikā, the queen of Çātakarṇi, belong to the same period as the Nāsik inscription of Kṛishṇa². Even, therefore, if it must be admitted that the Hāthīgumphā inscription is undated, there is still reason to believe that Khāravela may have been contemporary with Çātakarṇi in the first half of the second century B.C. Moreover, a Çātakarṇi is actually mentioned in the Hāthīgumphā inscription as Khāravela's rival; and it appears most probable that he is to be identified with the Çātakarṇi of the Nānāghāt inscription. Like this Çātakarṇi, Khāravela was also the third of his line, if we may accept the usual interpretation of a passage in the Hāthīgumphā inscription³; and, as the rise of both the Andhra and Kaliṅga dynasties must no doubt date from the same period when the Maurya power began to decline, the probability that these two kings were contemporary is thus increased.