[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [General history and culture](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general) › [The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924) › c11 # The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c11: Appendix C. Chronology of the Śaiśunāga and Nanda Dynasties The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c11 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c11.s1 Chronology (Approximate) of Śaiśunāga and Nanda Dynasties](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.s1) — 1 part ### Appendix C. Chronology of the Śaiśunāga and Nanda Dynasties ### [c11.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.2) Although the discrepant traditionary materials available do not permit the determination with accuracy of the chronology of the Śaiśunāga and Nanda dynasties, it is, I venture to think, possible to attain a tolerably close approximation to the truth, ### [c11.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.3) 'Nine months have over us passed since that sad day My father perished.' ### [c11.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.4) and to reconcile some of the traditions. The fixed point from which to reckon backwards is the year 322 B. C., the date for the accession of Chandragupta Maurya, which is approximately correct, with a possible error not exceeding three years. The second principal datum is the list of ten kings of the Śaiśunāga dynasty as given in the oldest historical entries in the Purāṇas, namely, those in the \*Matsya\* and the \*Vāyu\*, the general correctness of which is confirmed by several lines of evidence; the third is the revised reading (1917) of the Khāravela inscription, referred to in note 2 on p. 44 \*supra\*; and the fourth is the probable date of the death of Buddha. ### [c11.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.5) Although the fact that the Śaiśunāga dynasty consisted of ten kings may be admitted, neither the duration assigned by the Purāṇas to the dynasty as a whole, nor that allotted to certain reigns, can be accepted. Experience proves that in a long series an average of twenty-five years to a generation is rarely attained, and that this average is still more rarely exceeded in a series of reigns as distinguished from generations. ### [c11.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.6) The English series of ten reigns from Charles II to Victoria inclusive, 1649–1901 (reckoning the accession of Charles II from the death of his father in 1649), occupied 252 years, and included the two exceptionally long reigns of George III and Victoria, aggregating 124 years. The resultant average, 25·2 years per reign, may be taken as the maximum possible, and consequently 252 years are the maximum allowable for the ten Śaiśunāga reigns. The Purāṇic figures of 321 (\*Matsya\*) and 332 (\*Vāyu\*) years, obtained by adding together the durations of the several reigns, may be rejected without hesitation as being incredible. The \*Matsya\* account concludes with the statement, 'These will be the ten Śaiśunāga kings. The Śaiśunāgas will endure 360 years, being kings with Kshatriya kinsfolk.'¹ Mr. Pargiter suggests that the figures '360' should be interpreted as '163'. If that interpretation be accepted the average length of reign would be only 16·3, and it would be difficult to make the death of Buddha (\*c.\* 543 B. C.) synchronize with the dates of his contemporaries, Bimbisāra and Ajātaśatru. It is probable that the dynasty lasted for more than two centuries. ### [c11.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.7) ¹ S. V. Venkatesvara Aiyar asserts that the real meaning of \*Kshatrabandhavaḥ\* ('with Kshatriya kinsfolk') is equivalent to \*Kshatriyādhawaḥ\*, i. e. 'Kshatriyas of a very low order' (\*Ind. Ant.\*, 1916, p. 11). ### [c11.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.8) As stated in the text, the traditional periods assigned to the Nanda dynasty of either 100 or 155 years for two generations cannot be accepted. The A-nanda mode of reckoning, used by the poet Chand, suggests 90 or 91 years as the true period. We thus get 342 (252 + 90) as the maximum admissible period for the Śaiśunāga and Nanda dynasties combined; and, reckoning backwards from the fixed point, 322 B. C., the year 664 B. C. is found to be \*the earliest possible date for Śiśunāga, the first king\*. But of course the true date may be, and probably is, somewhat later, because it is extremely unlikely that twelve reigns (ten Śaiśunāga and two Nanda) should have attained an average of 25·16 years. ### [c11.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.9) The reigns of the fifth and sixth kings, Bimbisāra, or Śrēṇika, and Ajātaśatru or Kūṇika, were well remembered owing to the wars and events in religious history which marked them. We may therefore assume that the lengths of those reigns were known more or less accurately, and are justified in accepting the concurrent testimony of the \*Vāyu\* and \*Matsya Purāṇas\*, that Bimbisāra reigned for twenty-eight years. ### [c11.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.10) Ajātaśatru is assigned twenty-five, or twenty-seven years by different Purāṇas, and thirty-two years by Tibetan and Ceylonese Buddhist tradition. I assume the correctness of the oldest Purāṇic list, that of the \*Matsya\*, and take his reign to have been twenty-seven years. The real existence of Darśaka (erroneously called Vaṁśaka by the \*Matsya\*) having been established by Bhāsa's \*Svapna-Vāsavadattā\*, his reign may be assigned twenty-four years, as in the \*Matsya\*. Udaya, who is mentioned in the Buddhist books, and is said to have built Pāṭaliputra, is assigned thirty-three years by the Purāṇas, which may pass.¹ ### [c11.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.11) ¹ The subject has been re-examined by S. V. Venkatesvara Aiyar in ‘The Ancient History of Magadha’ (\*Ind. Ant.\*, 1915, pp. 41 \*et seq.\*). He suggests that the nine Nandas are simply the last nine Saiśunāgas, and agrees that Darśaka is a real figure, and that the dynasty began about 600 b. c. He, however, rejects Kālāśoka, who may after all have been real. K. P. Jayaswal's paper on ‘The Empire of Bindusāra’ in \*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, vol. ii, part i, March, 1916, pp. 81–3, is well worth consultation. ### [c11.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.12) The \*Vāyu\* and \*Matsya Purāṇas\* respectively assign eighty-five and eighty-three years to the sum of the reigns of kings nos. 9 and 10 together. These figures are improbably high, and it is unlikely that the two reigns actually occupied much more than fifty years. The figure 57 is assumed. ### [c11.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.13) The evidence as far as it goes, and at best it does not amount to much, indicates that the average length of the later reigns was in excess of the normal figure. We may assume, therefore, that the first four reigns, about which nothing is known, must have been comparatively short, and did not exceed some sixty years collectively. An assumption that these reigns were longer would unduly prolong the total duration of the dynasty, the beginning of which must be dated about 642 b. c. ### [c11.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.14) The existence of a great body of detailed traditions, which are not mere mythological legends, sufficiently establishes the facts that both Mahāvīra, the Jain leader, and Gautama Buddha were contemporary to a considerable extent with one another and with the kings Bimbisāra and Ajātaśatru.² ### [c11.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.15) ² Jacobi, Introd., \*S.B.E.\*, vols. xxii, xlv; the visit of Kūṇiya (Ajātaśatru) is alluded to in § 1, p. 9, of the Jain \*Uvāsaga Dasāo\* (\*Bibl. Ind.\*, ed. and trans. Hoernle), and in the Buddhist \*Dulva\* (Rockhill, \*Life of the Buddha\*, p. 104). Dr. Hoernle has kindly supplied these references. ### [c11.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.16) The deaths of these saints form well-marked epochs in the history of Indian religion, and are constantly referred to by ecclesiastical writers for chronological purposes. It might therefore be expected that the traditional dates of the two events would supply at once the desired clue to the dynastic chronology. But close examination of conflicting traditions raises difficulties. According to Pāli tradition Mahāvīra predeceased Buddha. But other reasons support the date 467 B. C., as advocated by Charpentier, and this fits in with the traditional date of Bhadrabāhu, who was the contemporary of Chandragupta Maurya.¹ The year 527 (528-7) B. C., the most commonly quoted date for the death of Mahāvīra, is merely one of several traditionary dates,² but it is supported by the evidence of the Khāravela inscription. It is impossible to reconcile wholly the Jain traditions either among themselves or with the known approximate date of Chandragupta. ### [c11.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.17) ¹ Charpentier 'The Date of Mahavira', \*Ind. Ant.\*, 1914, pp. 175–7. ### [c11.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.18) ² Burgess, \*Ind. Ant.\*, ii. 139. Hoernle (ibid. xx, 360) discusses the contradictory Jain dates, and observes that although the Digambara and Śvetāmbara sects agree in placing the death of Mahāvīra 470 years before Vikrama, whose \*era\* begins in 58 B. C., the Digambaras reckon back from the birth, and the Śvetāmbaras from the accession of Vikrama. The books indicate that 551, or 543, or 527 B. C. may be regarded as the traditional date. See also ibid. ii, 363; ix, 158; xi, 245; xiii, 279; xxi, 57; and xxiii, 169, for further discussion of Jain chronology. Note especially the statements that Sthūlabhadra, ninth successor of Mahāvīra, who was \*mantrin\* of the ninth Nanda, died either 215 or 219 years after the death of Mahāvīra, the same year in which Nanda was slain by Chandragupta (ibid. xi, 246). This latter event having occurred in or about 322 B. C., it is clear that 527 B. C. offers a more suitable basis for calculating the date of Sthūlabhadra's death than the date 467 B. C., proposed by Charpentier. Mērutuṅga dates Pushyamitra, who came to the throne \*cir.\* 185 B. C., in the period 323–53 after Mahāvīra (Weber, \*Sacred Lit. of the Jains\*, p. 133). ### [c11.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.19) The variety of dates assigned for the death of Buddha is almost past counting.³ Diwan Bahadur L. D. Swamikannu Pillai, working from the week-days recorded for events of Buddha's life, as given by Bigaudet, finds that they suit Tuesday, April 1, 478 B. C., which, consequently, he regards as the true date of Buddha's death (\*Ind. Ant.\*, Oct. 1914 (vol. xliii), pp. 197–204). Three other arguments confirm the approximate date as being 487 or 486 B. C. :— ### [c11.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.20) ³ The variant dates for the death of Buddha given by the Chinese and other authorities are too numerous and well known to need citation. Fleet at one time held 482 B. C. to be 'the most probable and satisfactory date that we are likely to obtain' (\*J. R. A. S.\*, 1906, p. 667). ### [c11.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.21) (1) The 'dotted record' kept up at Canton until A. D. 489 showed 975 dots up to that year; 975 − 489 = 486 (Takakusu, \*J. R. A. S.\*, 1905, p. 51). ### [c11.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.22) (2) Paramārtha, author of the \*Life of Vasubandhu\*, places the teachers Vrisha-gaṇa and Vindhya-vāsa, who flourished in the fifth century after Christ, as living in the tenth century after the Nirvāna (487 + 413 = 900). ### [c11.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.23) (3) One form of the Khotan tradition places Dharma Asoka 250 years after the Nirvāna of Buddha, and makes him contemporary with the Chinese emperor, She-hwang-ti, the builder of the Great Wall, who came to the throne in 246 B. C., became ‘universal emperor’ in 221, and reigned until 210 (Sarat Chandra Dās, \*J. A. S. B.\*, part 1, 1886, pp. 193–203; Tchang, \*Synchronismes chinois\*).¹ ### [c11.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.24) ¹ Other forms of the Tibetan tradition are given by Sarat Chandra Das, l. c., and by Rockhill, \*Life of the Buddha\*, pp. 233, 237. ### [c11.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.25) I do not believe that the date can be fixed with anything like certainty, and in opposition to the arguments in favour of 487 or 486 B. C. we now have the new reading of the Khāravela inscription which, if correct, obliges us to move back all the Saisunāga dates more than 50 years and therefore supports the Ceylon date for the death of Buddha, viz. 544 or 543 B. C. It may be argued that traditions preserved in Magadha should be more trustworthy than those recorded at a later date by monks in distant Ceylon: but there is ample evidence of the fact that Gautama Buddha was contemporary with both Bimbisāra or Srēnika and his son Ajātasatru or Kunika, and this being so, I feel compelled, until further light is thrown on the subject, to accept tentatively the earlier date, 543 B. C., based on the chronology disclosed by the Khāravela inscription. ### [c11.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.26) It is impossible to fix precise dates for the pre-Maurya kings. The following table assumes the correctness of their names and order as given in the oldest Purānic lists, those of the \*Matsya\* and \*Vāyu\*, but no reliance can be placed on the recorded length of the reigns. Some may be correct, while it is certain that some are erroneous. ### Chronology (Approximate) of Śaiśunāga and Nanda Dynasties ### [c11.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11.s1.1) | \*Serial No.\* | \*King (Matsya Purāṇa).\* | \*Length of Reign. (Matsya P.)\* | \*Probable date of Accession.\* | \*Remarks.\* | | | \*\*Śaiśunāga Dynasty.\*\* | | \*\*B. C.\*\* | | | 1 | Śiśunāga . . . | 40 | ? 642 | Originally Rājā of Kāsī or Benares. | | 2 3 4 | Kākavarṇa . . Kshemadharman Kshemajit or Kshatraujas . | .26 / 36 / 24 126 | .. .. .. | .Nothing known. Sixty / years allowed for four / reigns. | | 5 | Bimbisāra. . . | 28 | \*c.\* 582 | Built New Rājagṛiha ; annexed Anga ; contemporary with Mahāvīra and Gautama Buddha. | | 6 | Ajātaśatru . . | 27 | \*c.\* 554 | Death of Buddha, 543 ; built fort of Pāṭaliputra ; wars with Kosala and Vaisālī ; death of Mahāvīra. | | 7 | Darśaka . . . | 24 | \*c.\* 527 | See \*Svapna-Vāsavadatta\* of Bhāsa. | | 8 | Udāsin or Udaya | 33 | \*c.\* 503 | Built city of Kusumapura near Pāṭaliputra. | | 9 10 | Nandivardhana . Mahānandin . . | .40 / 43 83 | ? 470 .. | Nothing known ; reigns probably shorter in reality : 57 years allowed. | | | \*Total\* . . \*Average\* . | \*\*321\*\* \*\*32·1\*\* | \*\*\*c.\* 229\*\* \*\*22·9\*\* \*\*(maximum possible 25·0)\*\* | The \*Matsya\* assigns either 360 or ? 163 (Pargiter, p. 69) to the dynasty, as a whole. | | | \*\*Nanda Dynasty.\*\* | | | | | .11 / 12 | Mahāpadma, &c., 9 ; 2 generations | . 100 | 413 | 91 years allowed. Low caste heretics, hostile to Brahmans and Kshatriyas ; destroyed by Chandragupta and Kautilya. | | | \*\*Maurya Dynasty.\*\* | | | | | 13 | Chandragupta . | 24 | 322 (?325) | Date approximately correct. | ## Linked texts (6) - [Vāyupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.vayu) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Matsyapurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.matsya) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Svapnavāsavadatta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.bhasa.svapnavasavadatta) — Bhāsa, Sanskrit - [Vinayapiṭaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada.vp) — Pāli - [Uvāsagadasāo](https://indike.org/pramana/in.jaina.sveta.anga.7) — Sudharman, Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit - [Prabandhacintāmaṇi](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.jaina.prabandhacintamani) — Merutuṅga, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c11) · Pramāṇa