Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c19: Chapter IX. Scythian Rule in Southern and Western India

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c19

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX. Scythian Rule in Southern and Western India

Section I. The Kshaharātas

c19.s1.1

We have seen that in the second and first centuries B.C., the Scythians possessed Ki-pin (Kāpiśā-Gandhāra) and Śakasthāna (Seistan) and soon extended their sway over a large part of Northern India. The principal Scythic dynasties continued to rule in the north. But a Satrapal family, the Kshaharātas, extended their power to Western India and the Deccan, and wrested parts of Mahārāshṭra from the Sātavāhanas. The Sātavāhana king apparently retired to the southern part of his dominions, probable to the *Janapada* of the Bellary District which came to be known as Sātavāhanihāra, and was at one time under the direct administration of a military governor (*mahāsenāpati*) named Skanda-nāga.¹ The waning power of the indigenous rulers of the Deccan and the waxing strength of the invaders seem to be hinted at in the following lines of the *Periplus*:

c19.s1.2

¹ Ep. Ind. XIV, 155.

c19.s1.3

"The city of Calliena (Kalyāṇa) in the time of the elder Saraganus (probable Sātakarṇi I) became a lawful market town; but since it came into the possession of Sandanes (possible Sunandana Sātakarṇi)² the port is much obstructed, and Greek ships landing there may chance to be taken to Barygaza (Broach) under guard."

c19.s1.4

² Wilson in JASB, 1904, 272; Smith ZDMG, Sept., 1903; IHQ, 1932, 234; JBORS, 1932, 7f. The adjective 'elder' becomes pointless unless the passage mentions a younger Saraganus, and this person can only refer to Sandanes from whom the elder king is distinguished.

c19.s1.5

The name of the Scythian conquerors of the Broach region and of Mahārashṭra, Kshaharāta, seems to be identical with "Karatai," the designation of a famous Śaka tribe of the north mentioned by the geographer Ptolemy.¹

c19.s1.6

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, 1884, p. 400. Mr. Y. R. Gupte points out (*Ind. Ant.*, 1926, 178) that among the shepherds of the Deccan we have the surname Kharāta which he considers to be a 'shortened from of Khakharāta (Kshaharāta).

c19.s1.7

The known members of the Kshaharāta, Khakharāta, or Chaharata family are Liaka, Patika, Ghaṭāka, Bhūmaka and Nahapāna. Of these Liaka, Patika, and Ghaṭāka belonged to the Taxila and Mathurā regions respectively. Bhūmaka was a Kshatrapa of Kāṭhiāwār. Rapson says that he preceded Nahapāna. His coin-types are "arrow, discus and thunderbolt." These types have been compared with the reverse type "discus, bow and arrow" of certain copper coins struck conjointly by Spalirises and Azes (I).

c19.s1.8

Nahapāna was the greatest of the Kshaharāta Satraps. Eight Cave Inscriptions discovered at Paṇḍulena, near Nāsik, Junnar and Karle (in the Poona district) prove the inclusion of a considerable portion of Mahārāshṭra within his dominions. Seven of these inscriptions describe the benefactions of his son-in-law Ushavadāta (Ṛishabhadatta) the Śaka, while the eighth inscription specifies the charitable works of Ayama, the *Amātya* (minister or district officer). Ushavadāta's inscriptions indicate that Nahapāna's political influence probably extended from Poona (in Mahārāshṭra) and Sūrpāraka (in North Koṅkaṇ) to Prabhāsa in Kāṭhiāwār, Mandasor (Daśapura) and Ujjain in Mālwa and the district of Ajmer including Pushkara, the place of pilgrimage to which Ushavadāta resorted for consecration after his victory over the Mālayas or Mālavas.

c19.s1.9

The Nāsik records give the dates 41, 42, and 45, of an unspecified era, and call Nahapāna a *Kshatrapa*, while the Junnar epigraph of Ayama specifies the date 46 and speaks of Nahapāna as *Mahākshatrapa*. The generally accepted view is that these dates are to be referred to the Śaka era of 78 A.D. The name Nahapāna is no doubt Persian, but the Kshaharāta tribe to which Nahapāna belonged was probably of Śaka extraction and Ushavadāta, son-in-law of Nahapāna, distinctly calls himself a Śaka. It is, therefore, probable that the era of 78 A.D. derives its name of *Śaka* era from the Śaka princes of the House of Nahapāna. Rapson accepts the view that Nahapāna's dates are recorded in years of the Śaka era, beginning in 78 A.D., and, therefore, assigns Nahapāna to the period A.D. 119 to 124.¹ Several scholars² identify Nahapāna with Mambarus (emended into Nambanus)³ of the *Periplus* whose capital was Minnagara in Ariake. According to one theory Minnagara is modern Mandasor,⁴ and Ariake is Aparāntika.⁵

c19.s1.10

¹ Allan thinks that the coins of Nahapāna cannot be assigned to so late a date in the second century A.D. He points among other things to the similarity of the bust on the obverse of Nahapāna's silver coins and that on the coins of Rājuvūla. But he admits that this may be due to derivations from a common prototype such as the coins of Strato I, *Camb. Short Hist.*, 80 f.

c19.s1.11

² *E. g.*, M. Boyer in *Journal Asiatique*, 1897; *JASB*, 1904, 272. In *JRAS*, 1918, 108, Kennedy points out that the name certainly ends *in—bares—baros*, and not *in banos*.

c19.s1.12

³ *JRAS*, 1912. p. 785.

c19.s1.13

⁴ This is the view of D. R. Bhandarkar who apparently follows *Bomb. Gaz.*, I. 1. 15 n.; Cf., however, *Ind. Ant.*, 1926, p. 143, *Capital of Nahapāna* (=Junnar). Fleet identifies Minnagara with Dohad in the Pañch Mahāls (*JRAS*, 1912, p. 788; 1913, 993n). In a paper read at the sixth conference of Orientalists at Patna Dr. Jayaswal referred to a Jaina work which mentions Broach as the capital of Nahapāna (See now *Āvaśyaka sūtra*, *JBORS*, 1930, Sept. Dec., 290). For a different tradition see IHQ, 1929, 356. Vasudhara (?) nagari.

c19.s1.14

⁵ *Cf.* also IA, 7, 259, 263: Ariake may also be Āryaka of Varāhamihira's *Brihat Saṁhitā*.

c19.s1.15

R. D. Banerji and G. Jouveau-Dubreuil are of opinion that Nahapāna's dates are not referable to the Śaka era. They say that if we admit that the inscriptions of Nahapāna are dated in the Śaka era, there will be only an interval of five years between the inscription of this king, dated 46 and the inscriptions of Rudradāman, dated 52. Within these years must have taken place:

c19.s1.16

(1) The end of Nahapāna's reign;

c19.s1.17

(2) The destruction of the Kshaharātas;

c19.s1.18

(3) The accession of Chashṭana as Kshatrapa, his regin as *Kshatrapa* his accession as a *Mahākshatrapa*, and his reign as *Mahākshatrapa*;

c19.s1.19

(4) The accession of Jayadāman as Kshatrapa, his reign as *Kshatrapa*, and perhaps also his reign as *Mahākshatrapa*;

c19.s1.20

(5) The accession of Rudradāman and the beginning of his reign.

c19.s1.21

There is no necessity, however, of crowding the events mentioned above within five years (between the year 46, the last known date of Nahapāna, and the year 52, the first known date of Rudradāman). There is nothing to show that Chashṭana's family came to power after the destruction of the Kshaharātas. The line of Chashṭana may have been ruling in Cutch and perhaps some adjacent territories, as the Andhau inscriptions of the year 52 suggest, while the Kshaharātas were ruling in parts of Mālwa and Mahārāshṭra. Moreover, there is no good ground for believing that a long interval elapsed from the accession of Chashṭana to that of Rudradāman. Drs. Bhandarkar and R. C. Majumdar have pointed out that the Andhau inscriptions clearly prove that Chashṭana and Rudradāman ruled conjointly in the year 52. Professor J. Dubreuil rejects their view on the ground that there is no "*cha*" after Rudradāman in the text of the inscription: *Rājña Chaṣṭanasa Ysāmotika-putrasa rājña Rudradāmasa Jayadāma-putrasa varshe dvipachāse, 50, 2*. Professor Dubreuil translates the passage thus:

c19.s1.22

"In the 52nd year, in the reign of Rudradāman, son of Jayadāman, grandson of Chashṭana and great-grandson of Ysāmotika."

c19.s1.23

The Professor who objects to a '*cha*' himself makes use not only of "and" but also of the words "grandson" and "great-grandson" no trace of which can be found in the original record. Had his translation been what the writer of the Andhau inscriptions intended, we should have expected to find the name of Ysāmotika first, and then the name of Chashṭana followed by those of Jayadāman and Rudradāman—*Ysāmotika prapautrasa Chashṭana pautrasa Jayadāma-putrasa Rudradāmasa*.¹ Moreover, it is significant that in the text of the inscription there is no royal title prefixed to the name of Jayadāman who ruled between Chashṭana and Rudradāman according to Dubreuil. On the other hand, both Chashṭana and Rudradāman are called *Rājā*. The two are mentioned in exactly the same way—with the honorific *rājā* and the patronymic. The literal translation of the inscriptional passage is "in the year 52 of king Chashṭana son of Ysāmotika, of King Rudradāman son of Jayadāman," and this certainly indicates that the year 52 belonged to the reign both of Chashṭana and Rudradāman.² The conjoint rule of two kings was known to ancient Hindu writers on polity.³ The theory of the conjoint rule of Chashṭana and his grandson is supported by the fact that Jayadāman did not live to be a *Mahākshatrapa* and must have predeceased his father, Chashṭana, as unlike Chashṭana and Rudradāman, he is called simply a *Kshatrapa* (*not Mahākshatrapa* and *Bhadramukha*) even in the inscriptions of his descendants.¹ We have already noticed the fact that the title *Rājā*, which is given to Chashṭana and Rudradāman in the Andhau inscriptions, is not given to Jayadāman.

c19.s1.24

¹ *Cf.* the Junāgaḍh, Guṇḍa and Jasdhan inscriptions.

c19.s1.25

² *Cf.* the coin legends "*Heramayasa Kaliyapaya*," "*Gudupharasa Sasasa*," "*Khatapāna Hagānasa Hagāmashasa*", etc., where, too, we have no *cha* after the second name. Whitehead, *Indo-Greek Coins*, 86, 147; *CHI*, 538.

c19.s1.26

³ *Cf. Dvirāja* in the *Atharva Veda* (V. 20, 9); *Dvairājya* in the Kauṭilīya *Arthaśāstra*, p. 325; *Dorajja* of the *Āyāraṅga Sutta*; the classical account of Patalene, p. 259 *ante*; the case of Dhṛitarāshṭra and Duryodhana in the Great Epic; of Eukratides and his son in Justin's work; of Strato I and Strato II; of Azes and Azilises, etc., etc. The *Mahāvastu* (III. 432) refers to the conjoint rule of three brothers:—"*Kaliṅgeshu Siṁhapuram nāma nagaraṁ tatra trayo bhrātaro ekamātṛikā rajyaṁ kārayamti.*" See also IA, 6, 29. *Cf.* Nilkanta Sastri, *Pandyan Kingdom*, 120, 122, 180.

c19.s1.27

¹ *Cf.* the Guṇḍa and Jasdhan inscriptions.

c19.s1.28

Mr. R. D. Banerji says that the inscriptions of Nahapāna cannot be referred to the same era as used on the coins and inscriptions of Chashṭana's dynasty because if we assume that Nahapāna was dethroned in 46 Ś. E., Gautamīputra must have held Nāsik up to 52 Ś. E. (from his 18th to his 24th year), then Pulumāyi held the city up to the 22nd year of his reign, *i.e.*, up to at least 74 Ś. E. But Rudradāman is known to have defeated Pulumāyi and taken Nāsik before that time. Banerji's error lies in the tacit assumption that Rudradāman twice occupied Nāsik before the year 73 of the Śaka era. There is no clear evidence to suggest that the Sātavāhanas lost Poona and Nāsik to that great satrap though they may have lost Mālwa and the Koṅkan. Another untenable assumption of Mr. Banerji is that Rudradāman finished his conquests before the year 52 or A. D. 130, whereas the Andhau inscriptions merely imply the possession of Cutch and perhaps some adjoining tracts by the House of Chashṭana.

c19.s1.29

The theory of those who refer Nahapāna's dates to the Śaka era, is confirmed by the fact pointed out by Professor Rapson, and Dr. Bhandarkar after him, that a Nāsik inscription of Nahapāna refers to a gold currency, doubtless of the Kushāns who could not have ruled in India before the first century A. D.¹

c19.s1.30

¹ Rapson, *Coins of the Andhra Dynasty*, etc., pp. lviii, clxxxv; Bhandarkar, *Ind. Ant.*, 1918-1919, '*Deccan of the Sātavāhana Period*'.

c19.s1.31

The power of Nahapāna and his allies, the Uttamabhadras,² was threatened by the Mālayas (Mālavas) from the north, and the Sātavāhanas from the south. The incursion of the Mālavas was repelled by Ushavadāta. But the Sātavāhana attack proved fatal to Śaka rule in Mahārāshṭra.

c19.s1.32

² The Uttamabhadras may have been a section of the Bhadra tribe mentioned in a list of gaṇas along with the Rohitakas (cf. Rohtak in south-east Punjab), the Āgreyas (of Agra?) and the Mālavas (*Mbh.* III. 253.20). In *Mbh.* VI. 50. 47 the Pra-bhadras are associated with the *gaṇas* or corporations of the Dāserakas, apparently of the desert region of Rājputāna (Monier Williams, Dic. 405).

c19.s1.33

We know very little about Chakora and Śivasvāti mentioned in the Purāṇas as the immediate successors of Sunandana during whose reign Sātavāhana prestige had sunk very low and marauders from Barygaza had been harrying the ports that had once enjoyed the protection of the elder Sātakarṇi, probably Sātakarṇi I. But the king whose name occurs next in the list, *viz.*, Gautamīputra, regained the lost power of the house and dealt a severe blow at the power of the intruders from the north. The Nāsik *praśasti* calls him the "uprooter of the Kshaharāta race," and the "restorer, of the glory of the Sātavāhana family". That Nahapāna himself was overthrown by Gautamīputra is proved by the testimony of the Jogalthembi hoard (in the Nāsik district) which consisted of Nahapāna's own silver coins and coins restruck by Gautamīputra. In the restruck coins there was not a single one belonging to any prince other than Nahapāna as would certainly have been the case if any ruler had intervened between Nahapāna and Gautamīputra.

Section II. The Restoration of the Sātavāhana Empire

c19.s2.1

**Gautamīputra's** victory over the Kshaharātas led to the restoration of the Sātavāhana power in Mahārāshṭra and some adjoining provinces. The recovery of Mahārāshṭra is proved by a Nāsik inscription, dated in the year 18,¹ and a Karle epigraph addressed to the *Amātya* or the king's officer in charge of Māmāla (the territory round Karle, modern Māval in the Poona district). But this was not the only achievement of Gautamīputra. We learn from the Nāsik record of queen Gautamī Balaśrī that her son destroyed the Śakas (Scythians), Yavanas (Greeks) and Pahlavas (Parthians), and that his dominions extended not only over Asika,² Asaka (Aśmaka on the Godāvarī, a part of Mahārāshṭra),³ and Mūlaka (the district around Paiṭhan), but also over Suratha (South Kāṭhiāwār), Kukura (in Western or Central India, possibly near the Pāriyātra or the Western Vindhyas),⁴ Aparānta (North Koṅkaṇ), Anupa (district around Māhishmatī on the Narmadā), Vidarbha (Greater Berar), and Ākara-Avanti (East⁵ and west Mālwa). He is further styled lord of all the mountains from the Vindhyas to the Malaya or Travancore hills, and from the Eastern (Mahendra) to the Western (Sahya) Ghāṭs. The possession of Vejayantī in the Kanarese country is possibly hinted at in the Nāsik inscription of the year 18. The names of the Andhra country (Andhrāpatha) and South Kosala are, however, conspicuous by their absence. Inscriptions, coins and the testimony of Hiuen Tsang prove that both these territories were at one time or other included within the Sātavāhana empire. The earliest Sātavāhana king whose inscriptions have been found in the Andhra region is Pulumāyi, son of Gautamīputra. It is, however, possible that some vague claim of suzerainty over the areas in question is implied in the boast that Gautamīputra was lord of the Vindhyas and the Eastern Ghāṭs (Mahendra) and that his chargers “drank the water of the three oceans” (*tisamudatoya-pīta-vāhana*). Moreover “Asika” seems to have included a considerable portion of the valley of the Kṛishṇā.

c19.s2.2

¹ The Nāsik Edict was issued from the camp of victory of the Vejayantī army (*Ep. Ind.*, VIII. 72) and was addressed to the *Amātya* or the king's officer in charge of Govardhana (Nāsik). According to Sircar 'Vejayantī' is not a city but an epithet of *Senā* (army).

c19.s2.3

² On the Kṛishṇaveṇā, *i.e.*, the river Kṛishṇā (Khāravela's ins., *IHQ*. 1938 275); *cf.* Ārshika, Patañjali, IV, 2.2.

c19.s2.4

³ Shamasāstry's translation of the *Arthaśāstra*, p. 143, n. 2. Its capital Potana probably corresponds to Bodhan in the Nizam's dominions.

c19.s2.5

⁴ *Bṛihat Saṁhitā*, XIV, 4.

c19.s2.6

⁵ Eastern Mālwa was possibly under Vāsishka, the successor of Kanishka I, in the year 28 of the Kushān Era which corresponds to A.D. 106 according to the system of chronology adopted in these pages. Ākara has been identified with Āgar, 35 miles north-east of Ujjain, *Bomb. Gaz.*, Gujarat, 540; *Ep. Ind.*, xxiii. 102.

c19.s2.7

In the Nāsik *praśasti* Gautamīputra figures not only as a conqueror, but also as a social reformer. “He crushed down the pride and conceit of the Kshatriyas, furthered the interest of the twice-born, apparently the Brāhmaṇas, as well as the lowest orders (*Dvijāvarakuṭubavivadhana*)¹ and stopped the contamination of the four *varṇas* (castes).”

c19.s2.8

¹ *Kuṭumba* means ‘a household’, ‘a family’ and *avara-kuṭuba* may be taken to mean ‘households or families of the lowly’. The use of the word *kuṭuba* may suggest that the ‘lowly’ order or orders, whose families or households are referred to, are the traders and agriculturists (*kuṭumbika*).

c19.s2.9

According to Sir R. G. Bhandarkar and Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, Gautamīputra reigned conjointly with his son Pulumāyi. They give the following reasons in support of their theory:—

c19.s2.10

(1) In Gautamî's inscription (dated in the 19th year of her grandson Pulumāyi) she is called the mother of the great king and the grandmother of the great king. This statement would be pointless if she were not both at one and the same time.

c19.s2.11

(2) If it were a fact that Gautamîputra was dead when the queen-mother's inscription was written, and Pulumāyi alone was reigning, we should expect to find the exploits of the latter also celebrated in the inscription. But there is not a word in praise of him. A king dead for 19 years is extolled, and the reigning king passed over in silence.

c19.s2.12

(3) The inscription dated in the year 24, engraved on the east wall of the Veranda of the Nāsik Cave No. 3, which records a grant made by Gautamîputra and the "king's mother whose son is living", in favour of certain Buddhist monks "*dwelling in the cave which was a pious gift of theirs*," presupposes the *gift of the Nāsik Cave No. 3* in the 19th year of Pulumāyi. Consequently Gautamîputra was alive after the 19th year of his son.

c19.s2.13

As regards point (1), it may be said that usually a queen sees only her husband and sometimes a son on the throne. Queen Gautamî Balaśrī, on the other hand, was one of the fortunate (or unfortunate) few who saw grandchildren on the throne. Therefore, she claimed to be the mother of a great king and the grandmother of a great king.

c19.s2.14

As to point (2), is the silence satisfactorily explained by the theory of conjoint rule? Those who prefer the opposite view may point out that although it is not customary for an ordinary subject to extol a dead king and pass over a reigning monarch in silence, still it is perfectly natural for a queen-mother in her old age to recount the glories of a son who was associated with her in a previous gift.

c19.s2.15

As to point (3), it is not clear that the gift referred to in the postscript of the year 24 was identical with the grant of the year 19 of Pulumāyi. The donors in the postscript were king Gautamīputra and the *rājamātā*, the king's mother, apparently Balaśrī, while the donor in the year 19 of Pulumāyi was the queen-mother *alone*. In the inscription of the year 24, the queen-mother is called *Mahādevî Jīvasutā Rājamātā*, the great queen, the king's mother, whose son is alive. In Pulumāyi's inscription the epithets *Mahādevî* and *Rājamātā* are retained but the epithet "*Jīvasutā*." "*whose son is alive*," is significantly omitted. The donees in the former grant were the *Tekirasi* or Triraśmi ascetics in general, the donees in the latter grant were the monks of the *Bhadavānīya* school. The object of grant in the former case may have been merely the *Veranda* of Cave No. 3, which contains the postscript of the year 24, and whose existence before the 19th year of Pulumāyi is attested by an edict of Gautamīputra of the year 18. On the other hand, the cave given away to the *Bhadavānīya* monks was the whole of Cave No. 3.

c19.s2.16

If Gautamīputra and his son reigned simultaneously, and if the latter ruled as his father's colleague in Mahārāshṭra, then it is difficult to explain why Gautamīputra was styled "*Govadhanasa Benākaṭakasvāmi*," "lord of Benākaṭaka in Govardhana" (Nāsik),¹ and why he addressed the officer at Govardhana directly, ignoring his son who is represented as ruling over Mahārāshṭra, while in the record of the year 19, Pulumāyi was considered as so important that the date was recorded in the years of his reign, and not in that of his father who was the senior ruler.¹

c19.s2.17

¹ The use of the expression "*Govadhanasa*" suggests that there were other localities named Benākaṭaka from which this particular place is distinguished. A Bennākaṭa in the eastern part of the Vākāṭaka kingdom is mentioned in the Tiroḍi plates of Pravarasena II (? III) (IHQ, 1935, 293; Ep. Ind. XXII, 167 ff). Beṇā or Bennā is apparently the name of a small stream in each case.

c19.s2.18

¹ *Cf.* R. D. Banerji, *JRAS*, 1917, pp. 281 *et seq.* Note also the epithet (Dakshiṇā) patheśvara 'lord of the Deccan,' applied to Pulumāyi in the *praśasti* of the year 19.

c19.s2.19

The generally accepted view is that Pulumāyi came after Gautamīputra.

c19.s2.20

The date of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi is a matter regarding which there is a wide divergence of opinion. There are scholars who believe that the epithets *varavāraṇa-vikrama*, *chāru-vikrama*, "whose gait was beautiful like the gait of a choice elephant," and *Śaka-nishūdana*, destroyer of Śakas, suggest that he was the original of *Rājā* Vikramāditya of legend who founded the era of 58 B.C. But, as already pointed out, the use of regnal years by Gautamīputra and his descendants indicates that no era originated with the dynasty. Further, Indian literature clearly distinguishes between Vikramāditya of Ujjain and Śālivāhana or the Sātavāhanas of Pratishṭhāna. The view accepted in these pages is that Gautamīputra was the conqueror of Nahapāna and that his 18th year fell after the year 46 of the Śaka era, the last recorded date of his vanquished opponent. In other words the conquest of Nāsik by Gautamīputra took place some time after A.D. 78+46 = 124, and his accession after A.D. 124—18 = 106. As he ruled for at least 24 years, his reign must have terminated after A. D. 130.

c19.s2.21

In the Purāṇic lists compiled by Pargiter the immediate successors of Gautamīputra are Pulomā, his son, and Sātakarṇi. Pulomā is doubtless identical with Siro P(t)olemaios of Baithana mentioned by Ptolemi and Vāsishṭhīputra Svāmi Śrī Pulumāvi of inscriptions and coins. Sātakarṇi is perhaps to be identified with **Vāsishṭhīputra Śrī Sātakarṇi** of a Kanheri Cave Inscription, or with Vāsishṭhīputra Chatarapana Sātakarṇi of a Nānāghaṭ record. His exact position in the genealogical list cannot be determined with precision. The Kanheri epigraph represents Vāsishṭhīputra Śrī Sātakarṇi as the husband of a daughter of the *Mahākshatrapa* Ru(dra). Rapson identifies this Rudra with Rudradāman I. There can hardly be any doubt that the Sātavāhana king mentioned in the Kanheri record, or one of his close relations who bore a similar name, was identical with Sātakarṇi, lord of the Deccan, whom Rudradāman "twice in fair fight completely defeated, but did not destroy on account of the nearness of their connection." Dr. Bhandarkar's identification of Vāsishṭhīputra Śrī Sātakarṇi of Kanheri with Vāsishṭhīputra Śiva Śrī Sātakarṇi of coins and Śiva Śrī of the *Matsya Purāṇa* cannot be regarded as more than a conjecture. The ruler mentioned in the Kanheri Inscription may have been a brother of Pulumāyi.

c19.s2.22

We have seen that the capital of **Pulumāyi** was Baithan, *i.e.*, Paiṭhan or Pratishṭhāna on the Godāvarī identified by Bhandarkar with Navanara or Navanagara, *i.e.*, the new city. Inscriptions and coins prove that the dominions of this king included the Krishṇā-Godāvarī reign as well as Mahārāshṭra. It has already been pointed out that the Andhra country is not clearly mentioned in the list of territories over which Gautamīputra held his sway. It is not altogether improbable that Vāsishṭhīputra Pulumāyi was the first to establish the Sātavāhana power firmly in that region. Sukṭhankar identifies him with Siri Pulumāyi, king of the Sātavāhanas, mentioned in an inscription discovered in the Adoni tāluk of the Bellary district. But the absence of the distinguishing metronymic makes the identification uncertain and probably indicates that the king referred to in the inscription is Pulumāyi I of the Purāṇas or some other prince of the dynasty who bore the same name. D. C. Sircar identifies him with the last king of Pargiter's list. Numismatic evidence suggests that the political influence of a Pulumāyi extended to the Coromandel coast, and possibly to the Chanda district of the Central Provinces. But in the absence of epigraphic corroboration the matter cannot be regarded as definitely proved. Moreover, the absence of the metronymic Vāsiśhṭhīputra makes it uncertain in some cases as to whether the son of the great Gautamīputra is meant.

c19.s2.23

Vāsiśhṭhīputra Pulumāyi must have come to the throne some time after A. D. 130. He is known from a Karle epigraph to have ruled for at least 24 years, so that his reign terminated after A.D. 154.

c19.s2.24

The successors of Pulomā according to the Purāṇic lists compiled by Pargiter are Śiva Śrī¹ Pulomā and Śivaskanda (or Śivaskandha)² Sātakarṇi.

c19.s2.25

¹ Mirashi in the *Journal of the Num. Soc.* 11(1940), p. 88 attributes to him the coins of "Śivaśrī Pulumāyi III" of the Tarhāla hoard. He draws a distinction between this king (who was a Pulumāyi) and Vāsiṭhīputa Sivasiri Sātakaṁṇi who is known to Rapson's *Catalogue*. The *Vishṇu Purāṇa*, however, represents Śivaśrī as a Sātakarṇi (and not a Pulumāyi). The matter must, therefore, be regarded as *sub judice*.

c19.s2.26

² Mirashi (*ibid.* 89) identifies him with King Sirikhada or Skanda Sātakarṇi of the Tarhāla hoard (Akola district) and other coins whose name was wrongly read as Chaḍa Sātakarṇi by Smith and Rudra Sātakarṇi by Rapson. This "Rudra" was represented as a ruler of the Andhra-deśa.

Yajñaśrī Sātakarṇi

c19.s2.t1.1

³ In *JRAS*, July, 1934, 560ff, Dr. D. C. Sircar suggests that the name of this king was Śrī Yajña Sātakarṇi as stated in inscriptions, and not Yajña Śrī (as stated in the Purāṇas). It should, however, be remembered that *Śrī* is here an honorific and it is frequently used as a suffix in the names of members of the Sātavāhana royal house (*cf.* Veda or Skanda-Siri, Haku-Siri, Bala-Śrī, Siva-Śrī, etc.; Rapson, *Andhra Coins*, pp. xlvii, l, lii). The mere fact that in certain documents Śrī precedes the name of a king does not prove conclusively that it was never used as a suffix. In the famous inscription of Khāravela the king is called both Siri Khāravela and Khāravela-Siri. In the *Mudrārākshasa* Śrīmat Chandragupta is also styled Chanda-Siri. *Cf.* Aśoka Śrī in *Pariśishṭa-parvan*, IX. 14.

c19.s2.t1.2

The immediate successor of Śivaskanda according to the collated text of Pargiter was Yajña Śrī. If the Purāṇas are to be believed his accession took place more than 35 years after the close of the reign of Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi, *i.e.*, after A. D. 165 and ended after A.D. 194. Yajña Śrī's inscriptions, which prove that he reigned for at least 27 years, are found at the following places, *viz.*, Nāsik in Mahārāshṭra, Kanheri in Aparānta, and China in the Krishṇā district. His coins are found in Gujrāt, Kāṭhiāwār, Aparānta, the Chanda District in the Central Provinces, and the Kṛishṇā district of the Madras State. There can be no doubt that he ruled over both Mahārāshṭra and the Andhra country and recovered Aparānta (N. Koṅkaṇ) from the successors of Rudradāman I. Smith says that his silver coins imitating the coinage of the Śaka rulers of Ujjain probably point to victories over the latter, and that the coins bearing the figure of a ship suggest the inference that the king's power extended over the sea. He thus anticipated the naval ventures of the Kadambas of Goa, of Sivājī and of the Angrias.¹

c19.s2.t1.3

¹ Rapson, however, says (*Coins of the Andhra Dynasty*, p. 22) in reference to certain lead coins (of the Coromandel coast): "*obv* Ship with two masts. *Inscr.* not completely read, but apparently *Siri-Pu (lumā) visa.*"

c19.s2.t1.4

Yajñaśrī was the last great king of his dynasty. After his death the Sātavāhanas probably lost North-Western Mahārāshṭra to the Ābhīra king Iśvarasena.² The later Sātavāhana princes—Vijaya, Chaṇḍa Śrī (variant Chandra Śrī) and Pulomāvi of the Purāṇas—seem to have ruled in Berar, the Eastern Deccan and the Kanarese country.¹ The existence of Vijaya seems now to be confirmed by numismatic evidence.² Chaṇḍa Śrī may have been identical with Vāsiṣṭhī-putra "Sāmi-siri Chaṁḍa Sāta" of the Kodavali rock-cut well Inscription discovered near Piṭhāpuram in the Godāvarī region, while Pulomāvi is, in the opinion of Dr. D. C. Sircar, to be identified with the king of the same name mentioned in the Myakadoni inscription of the Bellary District. Coins disclose the existence of a few other Kings of the line who must be assigned to the latest Sātavāhana period. Sātavāhana rule in the Kṛishṇā, Guṇṭūr and Bellary districts was eventually supplanted by the Ikshvākus¹ and the Pallavas.²

c19.s2.t1.5

² The earliest reference to the Ābhīras to which an approximate date can be assigned is that contained in the *Mahābhāshya* of Patañjali. The *Mahābhāshya* as well as the *Mahābhārata* connects them with the Śūdras—the Sodrai of Alexander's historians. Their country—Abiria—finds mention in the *Periplus* and the geography of Ptolemy. In the third quarter of the second century A. D., Ābhīra chieftains figured as generals of the Śaka rulers of Western India. Shortly afterwards a chief named Jśvaradatta, probably an Ābhīra, became *Mahākshatrapa*. His relation to the Abhīra king Mādharīputra Iśvara Sena, son of Śiva Datta, remains doubtful. But some scholars are inclined to identify the two chiefs. It is also suggested that this dynasty of Iśvara Sena is identical with the Traikūṭaka line of Aparānta, and that the establishment of the Traikūṭaka era in A.D. 248 marks the date at which the Abhīras succeeded the Sātavāhanas in the Government of Northern Mahārāshṭra and the adjoining region. The last known rulers of the Traikūṭaka line were Indradatta, his son Dahrasena (455-56 A. D.), and his son Vyāghrasena (489-90), after whom the kingdom seems to have been conquered by the Vākāṭaka king Harisheṇa.

c19.s2.t1.6

¹ The Berar (Akola) group includes certain princes, not included in the Purāṇic lists, *e.g.*, Srī Kumbha Sātakarṇi, Srī Karṇa Sātakarṇi (unless he is identified with the so-called Svātikarṇa, the fourteenth king of Pargiter's list) and Srī Saka Sātakarṇi (Mirashi, *J. Num. Soc.*, II, 1940). Mirashi thinks that the real name of the so-called Kṛishṇa (II) of the Chanda hoard was Karṇa. Among kings of uncertain identity mention may be made of Śrī Śivamaka Sāta of the Amarāvatī inscription and Māṭharīputra Śrī Sāta of Kanheri.

c19.s2.t1.7

² Mirashi, *Journal of the Nums. Soc. of India*, II (1940), p. 90. The only clear letters are *ya-Sātakaṇi*. The ascription to Vijaya must be regarded as tentative.

c19.s2.t1.8

¹ The *Ikshvākus* are known from inscriptions discovered on the ruins of the Jagayyapeta *stūpa* in the Kṛishṇā District and also at Nāgārjunikoṇḍa and Gurzala in the Guṇṭūr district (Ep. Ind., 1929, 1f.; 1941, 123 f). They were matrimonially connected with the Kekayas, probably a ruling family of Ancient Mysore (Dubreuil, *AHD*, pp. 88, 101). The most well-known rulers of the Ikshvāku family of the Eastern Deccan are Chāṁtamūla, Śrī-Vīra-Purusha-datta, Ehuvala Chāṁtamūla II and possibly 'Rulupurisadāta' (Ep. Ind., xxvi. 125). The Ikshvākus were succeeded by the "Ānanda" kings of Guṇṭūr, the Bṛihat-phalāyanas of Kudurāhāra (near Masulipatam), the Śālaṅkāyanas of Veṅgī (*cf.* IA, 5. 175 and the Salakenoi of Ptolemy), and the Vishṇukuṇḍins of Leṇḍulura (near Veṅgī).

c19.s2.t1.9

² The *Pallavas*—a people of unknown origin, claiming descent from Aśvatthāman and Nāga princesses, are the most important of all the dynasties that succeeded the Sātavāhanas in the Far South. The claim of descent from Brāhmaṇas of the Bharadvāja *gotra*, the performance of the *Aśvamedha* and patronage of Sanskrit learning, connect the dynasty with the Śuṅgas, while the Brāhmaṇa-Nāga connection, (*cf. Saṁkīrṇa-jāti*, *Brahma-kshatra*, *SII*, Vol. xii, Nos. 7, 48) the performance of Vedic sacrifices including the horse-sacrifice, early association with the Sātavāhana Janapada in the Bellary district and the use of *Prākṛita* in their early records, connect the family with the Sātavāhanas. There is no question of any Parthian affinity as the genealogical lists of the family are singularly devoid of Parthian nomenclature. The elephant's scalp used as a crown is no test of race. The well-known hostility of the family to the Cholas and the decidedly northern character of their culture preclude the possibility of a pure Tamil extraction. The first great Pallava king, Śiva-Skanda-varman, is known from the inscriptions found at Mayidavolu (in Guṇṭūr) and Hīrahaḍagalli (in Bellary) to have ruled over an extensive empire including Kāñchī, Andhrāpatha and Sātāhani *raṭṭha*, and performed the *Aśvamedha* sacrifice. About the middle of the fourth century A.D. the emperor Samudra Gupta invaded Southern India, defeated the reigning Pallava king, Vishṇugopa, and gave a severe blow to the power and prestige of the empire of Kāñchī which, in the long run, probably led to its disruption. The evidence of the Penukoṇḍa Plates, the Tālagunda inscription and the Hebbata grant (IHQ, 1927, 434) seems to suggest that the Pallava supremacy continued for some time to be acknowledged by the early Gaṅgas of Anantapura and East Mysore and the early Kadambas of Vaijayantī (Banavāsi) and Mahisha-Vishaya (Mysore). The history of the Pallavas
* Kings marked with asterisks may have been identical. But this is by no means certain. The settlement of early Pallava genealogy and chronology must still await future discoveries.

Provincial Government under the Sātavāhanas

c19.s2.t2.1

A word may be said here regarding the internal organisation of the Sātavāhana empire. The sovereign himself seems to have resided in Pratishṭhāna or in "camps of victory" in Govardhana (Nāsik district),

c19.s2.t2.2

during the fifth and sixth centuries is obscure. Certain inscriptions disclose the names of the following kings, but little is known about them :—

c19.s2.t2.3

[Figure: Kings of Kṛishṇā, Guṇṭūr and Nellore districts | King of Kāñchī Omgoḍu I and II Uruvupalli, Māṅgalūr, Pīkira, Vilavatti and Chūra grants. Kumāravishṇu | Skandavarman I | Vīravarman* | (1) Vijaya Skandavarman II (Tāmbrāpa²), | (2) Yuva-mahārāja Vishṇugopa (Palakkada). | (3) Siṁhavarman (Daśanapura, Menmātura and Veṅgorāshṭra). | (4) Vijaya-Vishṇugopa Varman (Vijay-Palotkaṭa) Vishṇugopa I | Skandamūla | Kāṇagopa | Vīrakūrcha II* | Skandavarman I (Skandaśishya) | Kumāravishṇu I, recovered Kāñchī. | Buddhavarman, defeated Cholas. | Skanda II | Kumāravishṇu II | Buddhavarman | Skandavarman III | Vishṇugopa II | Vishṇudāsa | Skandavarman IV | Siṁhavarman I¹ | Vīravarman* | Skandavarman V | Siṁhavarman II A.D. 436 ? | Skandavarman VI | Nandivarman I | Siṁhavarman III, IV, (two kings of this name) | Vishṇugopa III | Siṁhavarman V | Siṁhavishṇu | Mahendravarman I | Narasiṁhavarman I Contemporary of Pulakeśin II. Vāyalūr, Velūrpalaiyam, Darśi and Chendalūr grants. Udayendiram grant. Lokavibhāga A.D. 458 and Penukoṇḍa plates ?]

c19.s2.t2.4

¹ A Siṁhavarman is mentioned in the Palnād inscription. But his identity and date are uncertain.

c19.s2.t2.5

² Tāmbrāpa is identified with Chembrolu.

c19.s2.t2.6

Vaijayantī (in North Kanara) and other places.¹ The imperial dominions were divided into administrative units called *āhāra* or *janapada* and placed under rulers who fell into two classes, *viz.*, (*a*) *amātyas* who were ordinary civil functionaries and (*b*) military governors and feudatories styled *mahāsenāpati*, *mahāraṭhi*, *mahābhoja*, and even *Rājan*. *Amātyas* are mentioned in connection with Aparānta (North Koṅkaṇ), Govardhana (Nāsik), Māmāḍ(l)a (Poona), Banavāsī (North Kanara) and Khaḍḍavali (Godāvarī region). *Mahāraṭhis* are found associated with Chitaldrug, Nānāghaṭ, Karle and Kanheri (in the North Koṅkaṇ). They intermarried with the imperial family (and at times adopted its nomenclature) and also with the Chuṭu, Kauśika and Vāsiashṭha² clans. The *Mahābhojas* had close relations with Chuṭu rulers of Banavāsī. *Mahāsenāpatis* are found in Nāsik in the days of Yajña Śrī and in Bellary in the time of a Pulumāyi. The rule of these military governors, some of whom belonged to the Kuśika³ family or were matrimonially connected with it, was very much in evidence in the last days of the Sātavāhana empire. Potentates with the title of *rājā* ruled in the Kolhapur region. The most notable among these were: Vāsiashṭhīputra Vilivāyakura, Māṭharīputra Śivalakura and Gautamīputra Vilivāyakura (II). The Vilivāyakura group cannot fail to remind one of Baleokouros of Hippokoura mentioned by the Greek geographer Ptolemy (*c.* 150 A. D.)

c19.s2.t2.7

¹ *E.g.*, Navanara—perhaps really identical with the port of Calliena (Kalyāṇa, an ancient name of which, according to the *Bombay Gazetteer*, XIV. 114, is Navānagara).

c19.s2.t2.8

² Vasiashṭhas figure as rulers of Kaliṅga in later times.

c19.s2.t2.9

³ A Kauśikīputra Sātakarṇi is known from a coin (*Bibliography of Indian coins*, Part I, 1950, p. 36).

c19.s2.t2.10

It is from the ranks of military governors and feudatories that the princes who carved out independent principalities on the dissolution of the Sātavāhana empire, evidently sprang. The Śālaṅkāyanas (Salakenoi), for example, who appear to have been a feudatory family in the Andhra country, afterwards set up an independent sovereignty. The Pallavas were doubtless connected with the military governors of the Bellary district.

The Śātakarṇis of Kuntala

c19.s2.t3.1

In the days of the great Gautamīputra, son of Bala Śrī, Banavāsi or Vaijayantī (Kanara) seems to have been the capital of an imperial province under an *amātya* named Śivagupta. By an obscure transition the sovereignty of the territory passed into the hands of a family, possibly styled Chuṭu in inscriptions,¹ whose connection with the Sātavāhana-Śātakarṇis is not known. The evidence of the Myakadoni inscription and notices in the *Kāmasūtra* of Vātsyāyana, the *Gāthāsaptaśatī* and the *Kāvya Mīmāṁsā*, probably suggest that a group of **Sātavāhanas** preceded the so-called Chuṭu *kula* in Kuntala or the Kanarese country. Some of them were great patrons of Prākrit learning. The most famous amongst them was Hāla. Another king of the group was Kuntala Sātakarṇi, mentioned in the *Kāmasūtra* whom the Purāṇas regard as a predecessor of Hāla. The **Chuṭu line** is represented by Hārītīputra Vishṇukaḍa-Chuṭu kulānanda Śātakarṇi, *Rājā* of Vaijayantīpura, and his daughter's son Śiva-Skandanāga Śrī who is identified by Rapson with Skandanāga Sātaka of a Kanheri Inscription, and also with Hārītīputra Śiva-[Skanda]-varman, lord of Vaijayantī, mentioned in a Malavalli record (in the Shimoga district of Mysore). The last identification seems to be doubtful as the mother and daughter of Vishṇukaḍa could hardly have belonged to the same *gotra*. Hāritīputra Śivavarman was apparently succeeded by the Kadambas.¹

c19.s2.t3.2

¹ Some scholars do not accept the theory that Chuṭu is a dynastic designation. They regard it as a personal name. *Prog. Rep. of the ASI. W. Circle*, 1911-12, p. 5.

c19.s2.t3.3

¹ The Kadamba line was founded by Mayūraśarman, a Brāhmaṇa, who rose against the Pallavas and helped by "Vrihad Bāṇa" and other kings, compelled the lord of Kāñchī to confer on him the Paṭṭabandha of military governorship. He soon pushed his conquests to the western ocean. His great-grandson Kākustha varman gave his daughters in marriage to the Gupta and other kings. Kṛishṇa varman I performed the Aśvamedha. Mṛigeśa varman defeated the Gaṅgas and Pallavas and had his capital at Vaijayantī. Junior branches of the family ruled at Palāśikā, Uchchaśṛiṅgī and Triparvata. The Kadambas were finally overthrown by the Chalukyas. See Moraes, *Kadamba-Kula*; Sircar, *JIH*, 1936, 301 ff.

Section III. The Śakas of Ujjain and Kāthiāwār

c19.s3.1

The greatest rivals of the restored Sātavāhana Empire were at first the Saka Kshatrapas of Ujjain. The progenitor of the Śaka princes of Ujjain was Ysamotika who was the father of Chashtana, the first *Mahākshatrapa* of the family. The name of Ysamotika is Scythic.¹ His descendant, who was killed by Chandra Gupta II, is called a Śaka king by Bāṇa in his *Harsha-charita*. It is, therefore, assumed by scholars that the Kshatrapa family of Ujjain was of Śaka nationality.

c19.s3.2

¹ *JRAS*, 1906, p. 211. Lévi and Konow (*Corpus*, II. i. lxx) identify Ysamotika with Bhūmaka on the ground that the Saka word "*Ysama*" means earth. But identity of meaning of names need not necessarily prove identity of persons. *Cf.* the cases of Kumāra Gupta and Skanda Gupta.

c19.s3.3

The proper name of the dynasty is not known. Rapson says that it may have been Kārddamaka. The daughter of Rudradāman boasts that she is descended from the family of Kārddamaka kings; but she may have been indebted to her mother for this distinction. The Kārddamaka kings apparently derive their name from the Kārdama, a river in Persia.²

c19.s3.4

² Pārasīka. Shamasastry's translation of the *Kauṭilīya*, p. 86. See also *IHQ*, 1933, 37 ff. Cf. the Artamis of Ptolemy, VI. 11. 2, a tributary of the Oxus.

c19.s3.5

According to Dubreuil, **Chashṭana** ascended the throne in A.D. 78, and was the founder of the Śaka era. But this is improbable in view of the fact that the capital of Chashṭana (Tiastanes) was Ujjain (Ozene of Ptolemy), whereas we learn from the *Periplus* that Ozene was not a capital in the seventies of the first century A.D.³ The *Periplus* speaks of Ozene as a former capital, implying that it was not a capital in its own time.

c19.s3.6

³ The *Periplus* mentions Malichos (Maliku), the king of the Nabataeans, who died in A. D. 75, and Zoscales (Za Hakale), king of the Auxumites, who reigned from A. D. 76 to 80 (*JRAS*, 1917, 827-830).

c19.s3.7

The earliest known date of Chashtana is S. E. 52, *i.e.*, A.D. 130. We learn from the Andhau inscriptions that in the year A.D. 130 Chashṭana was ruling conjointly with his grandson Rudradāman. Professor Rapson and Dr. Bhandarkar point out that his foreign title *Kshatrapa*, and the use of the *Kharoshṭhī* alphabet on his coins, clearly show that he was a viceroy of some northern power—probably of the Kushāns. Jayadāman, son of Chashṭana, seems to have acted merely as a *Kshatrapa* and to have predeceased his father, and the latter was succeeded as *Mahākshatrapa* by Rudradāman.

c19.s3.8

**Rudradāman**¹ became an independent *Mahākshatrapa* some time between the years 52 and 72 (A.D. 130 and 150). We learn from the Junāgaḍh Rock Inscription of the year 72 that men of all castes chose him as protector and that he won for himself the title of *Mahākshatrapa*. This probably indicates that the power of his house had been shaken by some enemy (possibly Gautamīputra), and he had to restore the supreme satrapal dignity by his own prowess.

c19.s3.9

¹ For references to Rudradāman in literature, see Chatterjee, *Buddhistic Studies* (ed. Law), pp. 384 f.

c19.s3.10

The place names in the inscription seem to show that the rule of Rudradāman extended over Purv-āpar-Ākar-Āvanti (East and West Mālwa), Anupa-nivṛit or the Māhishmatī region (Māndhātā in Nimāḍ, or Maheśvara),² Ānartta³ (territory around Dwārakā), Surāshṭra (district around Junāgaḍh), Svabhra (the country on the banks of the Sābarmatī), Maru (Mārwār), Kachchha (Cutch), Sindhu-Sauvīra (the Lower Indus Valley),¹ Kukura (probably between Sind and the Pāriyātra Mt.),² Aparānta (N. Koṅkaṇ),³ Nishāda (in the region of the Sarasvatī and the Western Vindhyas),⁴ etc. Of these places Surāshṭra, Kukura, Aparānta, Anupa and Ākarāvanti formed part of Gautamīputra's dominions, and must have been conquered either from that king or one of his immediate successors. The Junāgaḍh inscription gives the information that Rudradāman twice defeated Sātakarṇi, lord of the Deccan, but did not destroy him on account of their near relationship. According to Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar this Sātakarṇi was Gautamīputra himself, whose son Vāsiśhṭhīputra Sātakarṇi was Rudradāman's son-in-law. According to Rapson the lord of the Deccan defeated by the Śaka ruler was Pulumāyi. It is more probable that the defeated ruler was Vāsisbṭhīputra Śātakarṇi himself, who may have been a brother and a predecessor of Pulumāyi.

c19.s3.11

² *IA*, 4, 346.

c19.s3.12

³ Ānartta may according to some, however, designate the district around Vaḍanagara (*Bom. Gaz.* 1, i, 6). In that case Kukura may be placed in the Dwārakā region. The *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* refers to Dwārakā as "*Kukur-Andhaka-Vṛishṇibhiḥ guptā*" (1, 11, 10). The *Vāyu Purāṇa* (ch. 96. 134) represents Ugrasena, the Yādava *rājā* as *Kukurodbhava*, of Kukura extraction. In Mbh. III. 183. 32, too, Kukuras are closely associated with Daśārhas and Andhakas who are known to have been Yādava clans. In II. 52. 15 they are associated with the Ambaṣhṭhas and the Pahlavas. A branch of the people may have lived in the lower valley of the Chenab and the Indus, while another branch occupied a portion of Kāṭhiāwār.

c19.s3.13

¹ Sindhu is the inland portion lying to the west of the Indus (*Watters, Yuan Chwang*, II. 252, 253, read with 256; Vātsyāyana. *Kāmasūtra*, Benares Ed. 295). *Sauvīra* includes the littoral (*Milinda Pañho, S. B. E.*, XXXVI, 269), as well as the inland portion lying to the east of the Indus as far as Multān (Alberuni, I, 302; *IA*, 7, 259). The Jaina *Pravachanasāroddhāra* names Vītabhaya as the capital.

c19.s3.14

² *Bṛihat Saṁhitā*, V, 71; XIV, 4.

c19.s3.15

³ Aparānta in its extended sense (*cf.* Aśoka, RE, V) no doubt embraces not only Sūrpāraka but Nāsik, Bharukachchha, the Mahī valley, Cutch, Surāshṭra, Ānartta, Abu, etc. (*Vāyu*, 45, 129 f., *Matsya*, 114. 50-51; *Mārk.* 57, 49 f.—the Purāṇic text is corrupt and Surpārakāḥ Kachchhīyāḥ and Ānarttāḥ should be substituted for Sūryārakāḥ, Kāśmīrāḥ and Avantyāḥ). But as the Junāgaḍh record distinguishes Aparānta from Surāshṭra, Ānartta, etc., it is clearly used here in its restricted sense.

c19.s3.16

⁴ *Cf. Nishāda-rāshṭra*, Mbh., III. 130. 4 (the place of the disappearance—*Vinaśana*—of the river Sarasvatī is described as the *dvāra* of *Nishādarāshṭra*); note also *Pāriyātracharāḥ*, Mbh., XII, 135, 3-5. In Mbh. ii. 31. 4-7 a Nishādabhūmi is placed between the Matsyas (of Jaipur) and the Chambal. The Vedic commentator Mahīdhara explains the word Nishāda as meaning a Bhil (*Vedic Index*, I. 454). According to Bühler (*IA*, 7, 263) Nishāda probably corresponded with Hissar and Bhatnir.

c19.s3.17

The Great Satrap also conquered the Yaudheyas, possibly of Johiya-bār along the Sutlej, who are known, from a stone inscription, to have occupied also the Bijayagaḍh region in the Bharatpur state. If the Kushān chronology accepted by us be correct, then he must have wrested Sindhu-Sauvīra from one of the successors of Kanishka I.

c19.s3.18

Rudradāman apparently held his court at Ujjain, which is mentioned by Ptolemy as the capital of his grandfather Chashtana, placing the provinces of Ānarta and Surāshṭra under his Pahlava (Parthian) *Amātya*¹ Suviśākha. The *Amātya* constructed a new dam on the famous Sudarśana Lake which owed its origin to the "care bestowed by the Maurya government upon question of irrigation, even in the most remote provinces."

c19.s3.19

¹ With this bureaucratic designation is to be contrasted the title *Rājā* applied to Tushāspha, the local ruler of Surāshṭra in the days of Aśoka, who "was more than a mere official" (*IA*, 7, 257 n). While some of the Saka provinces or districts were placed under *amātyas* or officers whose functions were mainly of a civil character, others seem to have been governed by generals (*Mahādaṇḍanāyaka*). The name of such a military governor is disclosed by a Sāñchi inscription (*JASB*, 1923, 343).

c19.s3.20

The Great Kshatrapa is said to have gained fame by studying grammar (*śabda*), polity (*artha*), music (*gandharva*), logic (*nyāya*), etc. As a test of the civilised character of his rule it may be noted that he took and kept to the end of his life, the vow to stop killing men except in battle. The Sudarśana embankment was rebuilt and the lake reconstructed by "expending a great amount of money from his own treasury, without oppressing the people of the town and of the province by exacting taxes (*Kara*), forced labour (*Vishi*) benevolences (*Praṇaya*), and the like.¹ The king was helped in the work of government by an able staff of officials, who were "fully endowed with the qualifications of ministers" (*amātya-guṇa samudyuktaiḥ*) and were divided into two classes, *viz.*, *Matisachiva* (Counsellors) and *Karma-sachiva* (Executive Officers).

c19.s3.21

¹ *Bomb. Gaz.* I, 1, 39.

c19.s3.22

Rudradāman had at least two sons and one daughter. The princess was given in marriage to Vāsiśhṭhīputra Srī Sātakarṇi of the Sātavāhana family of the Deccan. A Nāgārjunikoṇḍa inscription² refers to a princess from Ujjain named Rudradhara Bhaṭṭārikā who was the queen (*Mahādevī*) of an Ikshvāku ruler of the Guṇṭūr district and some adjoining regions in the lower Kṛishṇā valley. It has been surmised by Vogel that she probably belonged to the house of Chashṭana. Her father is styled a *Mahārāja*, a title which seems to have been formally assumed by one of the latest successors of Rudradāman I, viz., Svāmī-Rudrasena III, who ruled from *c.* A.D. 348 to 378, and was, apparently, a contemporary of Samudra-Gupta. It is, however, difficult to say if the Ikshvāku queen was a daughter of Rudrasena III or of some earlier prince.

c19.s3.23

² *Ep. Ind.*, XX, 1 ff.

c19.s3.24

Rudradāman I, was succeeded by his eldest son **Dāmaghsada I**. After Dāmaghsada there were, according to Rapson, two claimants for the succession : his son Jīvadāman and his brother Rudra Siṁha I. The struggle was eventually decided in favour of the latter. To **Rudra Siṁha's** reign belongs the Guṇḍa inscription of the year 103 (= A. D. 181) which records the digging of a tank by an Ābhīra general named Rudradhūti, son of the general Bāpaka or Bāhaka. The Ābhīras afterwards possibly usurped the position of *Mahākshatrapa*. According to Dr. Bhandarkar an Ābhīra named Iśvaradatta was the *Mahākshatrapa* of the period 188-90 A. D. But Rapson places Iśvaradatta after A.D. 236.

c19.s3.25

Rudra Siṁha I was followed by his sons **Rudrasena I**,^1 Saṅghadāman and Dāmasena. Three of Dāmasena's sons became *Mahākshatrapa*, viz., Yaśodāman, Vijayasena and Dāmajada Śrī. This last prince was succeeded by his nephew Rudrasena II who was followed by his sons Viśvasiṁha and Bhartṛidāman. Under Bhartṛidāman his son Viśvasena served as *Kshatrapa*.

First 106 of 204 passages. Read on

Linked texts (36)