Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c19.s1.23

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.