Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c17.s1: Section I. The Kaṇvas, the Later Śuṅgas and the Later Mitras

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c17.s1

Language
English

Section I. The Kaṇvas, the Later Śuṅgas and the Later Mitras

c17.s1.1

**Vasudeva** at whose instance the "over-libidinous Śuṅga" was "reft of his life" founded about 75 B.C. a new line of kings known as the Kāṇva or Kāṇvāyana dynasty. The *Purāṇas* give the following account of this family. "He (Vasudeva), the Kāṇvāyana, will be king 9 years. His son Bhūmimitra will reign 14 years. His son Nārāyaṇa will reign 12 years. His son Suśarman will reign 10 years. These are remembered as the *Śuṅga-bhṛitya* Kāṇvāyana kings. These four Kāṇva Brāhmaṇas will enjoy the earth.¹ They will be righteous. In succession to them the "earth" will pass to the Andhras." **Bhūmimitra** may have been identical with the king of that name known from coins.²

c17.s1.2

¹ Possibly only Eastern Mālwa where stood the later "Śuṅga" capital Vidiśā or Besnagar, and some adjoining tracts.

c17.s1.3

² Mr. J. C. Ghosh is inclined to include among the Kāṇva kings a ruler named Sarvatāta who is known (from the Ghosuṇḍī Inscription, *Ind. Ant.* 1932, Nov., 203 ff; *Ep. Ind.*, xxii, 198 ff.) to have been a devotee of Saṁkarshaṇa and Vāsudeva and a performer of the horse-sacrifice. But the identification of the Gājāyana family, to which the king belonged, with the Gālāyanas or Godāyanas (*cf.* IHQ. 1933, 797 ff) does not seem to be plausible. There seems to be no more reason to identify the Gājāyanas with the Gādāyanas than with the Gāhāyanas or Gāṅgāyanas of the Śunaka or Kaśyapa group (Caland, *Baudh. Srauta sūtra* III, 423-454). It is important to remember the fact that the *Harivaṁśa* refers to a Kaśyapa *dvija* as the reviver of the *Aśvamedha* in the Kali Age. The Gāṅgāyanas no doubt also recall the Gaṅgas of Mysore who claimed to belong to the Kāṇvāyana gotra (*A New History of the Indian People*, Vol. VI, p 248). But the equation Gājāyana = Gāṅgāyana is not proved.

c17.s1.4

The chronology of the Kāṇva dynasty is a matter of controversy. In his *Early History of the Deccan*, Sir R. G. Bhandarkar observes, "the founder of the Andhra-bhṛityas is said to have uprooted not only the Kāṇvas, but 'whatever was left of the power of the Śuṅgas.' And the Kāṇvas are pointedly spoken of as Śuṅga-bhṛityas or servants of the Śuṅgas. It, therefore, appears likely that when the princes of the Śuṅga family became weak, the Kāṇvas usurped the whole power and ruled like the Peshwas in modern times, not uprooting the dynasty of their masters but reducing them to the character of nominal sovereigns. Thus then these dynasties reigned contemporaneously, and hence the 112 years that tradition assigns to the Śuṅgas include the 45 assigned to the Kāṇvas.

c17.s1.5

Now, the Purāṇic evidence only proves that certain princes belonging to the Śuṅga stock continued to rule till the so-called "Andhra-bhṛitya" conquest and were the contemporaries of the Kāṇvas. But there is nothing to show that these *rois faineants* of the "Śuṅga" stock were identical with any of the ten "Śuṅga" kings mentioned by name in the Purāṇic lists, who reigned 112 years. On the contrary, the distinct testimony of the *Purāṇas* that Devabhūti, the tenth and last "Śuṅga" of the Purāṇic lists, was the person slain by Vasudeva, the first Kāṇva, probably shows that the *rois faineants*, who ruled contemporaneously with Vasudeva and his successors, were later than Devabhūti, and were not considered to be important enough to be mentioned by name. Consequently the 112 years that tradition assigns to the ten "Śuṅga" kings from Pushyamitra to Devabhūti do not include the 45 assigned to the Kāṇvas. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to accept with slight modifications the views of Dr. Smith regarding the date of the family. According to the system of chronology adopted in these pages, the period of Kāṇva rule extended from *cir.* B.C. 75 to *cir.* B.C. 30.

c17.s1.6

Very little is known about the history of Magadha proper after the Kāṇvas. To reconstruct the history of the province from the fall of the Kāṇvas to the rise of the Gupta dynasty is a difficult task. The so-called Andhras or Sātavāhanas who are represented as destroying the Kāṇva sovereignty, apparently in Eastern Mālwa, do not appear to have ruled in Magadha proper.¹ The greatest among them are called ‘Sovereigns of the Deccan’ (*Dakshiṇāpathapati*) and an accurate idea of the field of their political and military activities may be obtained from the epithets ‘*tisamuda-toyapītavāhana*,’ ‘whose chargers had drunk the water of the *three* oceans,’ and ‘*trisamudrādhipati*,’ ‘overlord of the *three* seas’ occurring in epigraphic and literary records. The sway of rulers like the Guptas, on the other hand, is said to have extended as far as the *four* seas.

c17.s1.7

¹ There is no valid reason for connecting the Nūrruvar Kannar (*Silappadikaram*, xxvi, Dikshitar’s trans. 299 f.) either with the Sātakarṇis or with Magadha. The expression "Kannar" sometimes stands alone proving that Nūrruvar is only a qualifying adjective, not a part of the name. The Ganges, even if it be the Bhāgīrathī, and not Gautamī Gaṅgā or the Godāvarī, with which the family is associated, flows through other territories besides Magadha, showing that there is no necessary connection between that province and the kings in question.

c17.s1.8

The discovery of a clay seal with the legend *Mokhaliṇam*² suggests that at one time the Gayā region was under the sway of Maukhari chiefs. But the precise date of the record is not known. Equally uncertain is the date of *Mahārājā* Trikamala who ruled in the same region in the year 64 of an unspecified era. Epigraphic evidence of a late date points to some connection between the Lichchhavis and Pushpapura (Pāṭaliputra). But it is difficult to say how far the tradition is genuine. The only rulers of note in the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era, whom we know from epigraphic evidence to have ruled in Magadha and the neighbouring provinces, are the so-called **‘Mitras’**. The prevalence of ‘Mitra’ rule is also hinted at by references in Jaina literature to Balamitra and Bhānumitra among the successors of Pushyamitra. From a study of available epigraphs Dr. Barua has compiled a list of ‘Mitra kings’. It includes the names of Bṛihatsvātimitra, Indrāgnimitra, Brahmamitra, Bṛihaspatīmitra (Dhar)mamitra and Vishṇumitra. To these should perhaps be added the names of Varuṇamitra and Gomitra.¹ Of these only Indrāgnimitra, Brahmamitra and possibly Bṛihaspatimitra are definitely associated with Magadha in addition to other territories. The rest are connected with Kauśāmbī and Mathurā.

c17.s1.9

² Fleet, CII, 14. The legend is written in Mauryan Brāhmī. The Maukharis in question may have exercised sway over some little principality under the suzerainty of the Mauryas or the Śuṅgas. Three inscriptions have recently been discovered at Baḍvā in the Kotah State in Rājputāna recording the erection of sacrificial pillars by Maukhari *Mahāsenāpatis* (generals or military governors) in the third century A. D. (*Ep. Ind.* XXIII, 52).

c17.s1.10

¹ Allan refers to kings Brahmamitra, Dṛidhamitra, Sūryamitra and Vishṇumitra who issued coins identical in type with those of Gomitra. They were followed by rulers whose names ended in-*datta*,—*bhūti* and —*ghosha*.

c17.s1.11

It is not known in what relationship most of these "Mitra" kings stood to one another or to the celebrated families of the Śuṅgas and the Kāṇvas.

c17.s1.12

In Pāṭaliputra as well as in Mathurā the "Mitras" seem to have been replaced eventually by the Scythian ‘Muruṇḍas’ and Satraps who, in their turn, were supplanted by the Nāgas and the Guptas. Some scholars place immediately before the Guptas a family called Kota which may have ruled in Pāṭaliputra.¹

c17.s1.13

¹ For statements in this section see Ep. Ind. VIII, 60ff; *Harshacharita* VIII, (p. 251); Cunn., *Mahābodhi*; ASI., 1908-9, 141; IHQ 1926, 441; 1929, 398, 595f; 1930, 1ff. 1933, 419; Kielhorn, N. I. Inscriptions, No. 541; *Indian Culture*, I, 695; EHI. 3rd ed. 227n; JRAS., 1912, 122; Smith *Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum*, 185, 190, 194; Allan, CICAI. pp. xcvi-xcviii, cx, 150ff, 169ff, 173ff, 195ff, 202ff.

Linked texts (6)