[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923) › c19.s1 # Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c19.s1: Section I. The Kshaharātas Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c19.s1 - **Language:** English ### Section I. The Kshaharātas ### [c19.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1.2) ¹ Ep. Ind. XIV, 155. ### [c19.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1.12) ³ \*JRAS\*, 1912. p. 785. ### [c19.s1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1.14) ⁵ \*Cf.\* also IA, 7, 259, 263: Ariake may also be Āryaka of Varāhamihira's \*Brihat Saṁhitā\*. ### [c19.s1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1.16) (1) The end of Nahapāna's reign; ### [c19.s1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1.17) (2) The destruction of the Kshaharātas; ### [c19.s1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1.19) (4) The accession of Jayadāman as Kshatrapa, his reign as \*Kshatrapa\*, and perhaps also his reign as \*Mahākshatrapa\*; ### [c19.s1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1.20) (5) The accession of Rudradāman and the beginning of his reign. ### [c19.s1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1.24) ¹ \*Cf.\* the Junāgaḍh, Guṇḍa and Jasdhan inscriptions. ### [c19.s1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1.27) ¹ \*Cf.\* the Guṇḍa and Jasdhan inscriptions. ### [c19.s1.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.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. ## Linked texts (5) - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa.3.253.20) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Atharvavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.atharva.5.20.9) — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit - [Mahāvastu](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.avadana.mahavastu) — Sanskrit - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Bṛhatsaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.astro.samhita.rsi.brhatsamhita) — Varāhamihira, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.raychaudhuri-1923.c19.s1) · Pramāṇa