[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) › c24 # The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c24: The Maurya Dynasty: Chronological Table The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c24 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c24.s1 The Sunga Dynasty](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1) — 33 parts - [c24.s2 The Kāṇva or Kāṇvāyana Dynasty](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2) — 10 parts - [c24.s3 The Āndhra or Andhra Dynasty](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3) — 37 parts ### The Maurya Dynasty: Chronological Table ### [c24.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.2) (Nearly exact dates.) ### [c24.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.3) | YEAR B. C. | EVENT. | | \*\*326 or 325 . .\*\* | \*\*Chandragupta Maurya in his youth met Alexander the Great.\*\* | | \*\*Sept. or Oct., 325\*\* | \*\*Alexander quitted India.\*\* | | \*\*Feb., 324 . .\*\* | \*\*Alexander, while in Karmania, received news of the murder of his satrap Philippos, in India; and placed Eudēmos and Āmbhi, king of Taxila, in charge of the Indian provinces.\*\* | | \*\*June, 323 . .\*\* | \*\*Death of Alexander at Babylon.\*\* | | \*\*323–322 (possibly a year or two years earlier)\*\* | \*\*Revolt of Panjāb under Chandragupta Maurya and destruction of Nanda dynasty of Magadha; accession of Chandragupta Maurya as emperor of India.\*\* | | \*\*321 . . .\*\* | \*\*Second partition of Alexander’s empire at Triparadeisos.\*\* | | \*\*315 . . .\*\* | \*\*Seleukos Nikator compelled by Antigonos to retire to Egypt.\*\* | | \*\*312 . . .\*\* | \*\*Recovery of Babylon by Seleukos.\*\* | | \*\*Oct. 1, 212 .\*\* | \*\*Establishment of Seleukidan era.\*\* | | \*\*306 . . .\*\* | \*\*Assumption by Seleukos of title of king.\*\* | | \*\*305 or 304 .\*\* | \*\*Invasion of India by Seleukos.\*\* | | \*\*303 . . .\*\* | \*\*Defeat of Seleukos by Chandragupta; treaty of peace; cession of a large part of Ariana by Seleukos.\*\* | | \*\*303–301 .\*\* | \*\*March of Seleukos against Antigonos.\*\* | | \*\*302 . . .\*\* | \*\*Megasthenes ambassador of Seleukos at Pātaliputra.\*\* | | \*\*301 . . .\*\* | \*\*Defeat and death of Antigonos at Ipsos in Phrygia.\*\* | | \*\*298 . . .\*\* | \*\*Accession of Bindusāra Amitraghāta as emperor of India.\*\* | | \*\*c. 296 . .\*\* | \*\*Deïmachos ambassador of Seleukos at Pāṭaliputra.\*\* | | \*\*285 . . .\*\* | \*\*Ptolemy Philadelphos, king of Egypt, acc.\*\* | | \*\*280 . . .\*\* | \*\*Seleukos Nikator, king of Syria, d.; Antiochos Soter, his son, acc.\*\* | | \*\*278 or 277 .\*\* | \*\*Antigonos Gonatas, king of Macedonia, grandson of Antiochos I, acc.\*\* | | \*\*273 . . .\*\* | \*\*Alexander, king of Epirus, son of Pyrrhus, and opponent of Antigonos Gonatas, acc.\*\* | | \*\*272 . . .\*\* | \*\*Accession of Asoka-vardhana as emperor of India.\*\* | | \*\*269 . . .\*\* | \*\*Coronation (\*abhisheka\*) of Asoka.\*\* | | \*\*264 . . .\*\* | \*\*Outbreak of First Punic War.\*\* | | \*\*261 . . .\*\* | \*\*Conquest of Kaliṅga by Asoka; Antiochos Theos, king of Syria, son of Antiochos Soter, acc.\*\* | | \*\*259 . . .\*\* | \*\*Asoka abolished hunting, instituted tours devoted to works of piety, and dispatched missionaries.\*\* | | \*\*258 . . .\*\* | \*\*Magas, king of Cyrēnē, half-brother of Ptolemy Philadelphos, died; (?) Alexander, king of Epirus, died.\*\* | | \*\*257 . . .\*\* | \*\*Minor Rock Edict I and Rock Edicts III and IV of Asoka, who instituted quinquennial official progresses for propagation of Law of Piety (\*dharma\*), and dedicated cave-dwellings at Barābar for the use of the Ājīvikas.\*\* | ### [c24.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.4) | YEAR B. C. | EVENTS. | | \*\*256\*\* . . . . | Publication of complete series of Fourteen Rock Edicts, and of the Kalinga Borderers’ Edict by Asoka, who appointed Censors of the Law of Piety (\*dharmamahāmātrāḥ\*). | | \*\*255\*\* . . . . | Asoka enlarged for the second time the \*stūpa\* of Konākamana Buddha near Kapilavastu. | | \*\*? 254\*\* . . . | Publication by Asoka of the Kaliṅga Provincial’s Edict. | | \*\*250\*\* . . . . | Dedication by Asoka of a third cave-dwelling at Barābar for the use of the Ājīvikas. | | \*\*249\*\* . . . . | Pilgrimage of Asoka to Buddhist holy places ; erection of pillars at Lumbinī Garden and near a \*stūpa\* of Konākamana ; (?) his visit to Nepāl, and foundation of Lalita Pātan ; his daughter Chārumatī becomes a nun. | | \*\*? 248\*\* . . . | Declaration of independence by Bactria and Parthia. | | \*\*247\*\* . . . . | Ptolemy Philadelphos, king of Egypt, died. | | \*\*247 or 246\*\* . | Antiochos Theos, king of Syria, grandson of Seleukos Nikator, died. | | \*\*243\*\* . . . . | Composition by Asoka of Pillar Edict VI, confirming the Rock Edicts. | | \*\*242\*\* . . . . | Publication by Asoka of complete series of Seven Pillar Edicts. | | \*\*242 or 239\*\* . | Antigonos Gonatas, king of Macedonia, died. | | \*\*241\*\* . . . . | Close of First Punic War ; rise of the kingdom of Pergamum. | | \*\*? 240–232\*\* . | Minor Pillar Edicts of Asoka. | | \*\*232\*\* . . . . | \*\*Asoka died : Dasartha (Kuśāla, \*Vāyu P.\*) acc., and dedicated Nāgārjunī caves to the Ājīvikas ; break-up of Maurya empire began.\*\* | | \*\*? 224\*\* . . . | Saṅgata Maurya, king (Bandhupālita, \*Vāyu P.\*). | | \*\*? 216\*\* . . . | Sāliśūka Maurya, king (Indrapālita, \*Vāyu P.\*) ; ? defeated by Khāravēla of Orissa. | | \*\*? 206\*\* . . . | Somaśarman Maurya, king (Daśavarman, or Devavarman, \*Vāyu P.\*). | | \*\*? 199\*\* . . . | Śatadhanwan Maurya, king (Śatadhanus, \*Vāyu P.\*) | | \*\*? 191\*\* . . . | Bṛihadratha Maurya, king (Bṛijadaśva, \*Vāyu P.\*).¹ | | \*\*185\*\* . . . . | \*\*Pushyamitra Śuṅga, acc., having slain Bṛihadratha ; final destruction of Maurya Empire.\*\* | ### [c24.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.5) ¹ The names of the successors of Asoka are taken from the \*Vishṇu Purāṇa\*, omitting Suyaśas, for the reasons given in the text. Other names are given in Jain books and the Buddhist \*Asokāvadāna\*. The \*Vāyu\*, which is one of the oldest of the Purāṇas, gives only nine names for the dynasty, as in brackets, and also states the duration of each reign. The approximate dates given are assigned accordingly, on the assumption that the reign of Asoka lasted for about forty or forty-one years. Its duration, according to the \*Vāyu Purāṇa\*, was thirty-six, and according to the \*Mahāvaṁśa\*, thirty-seven years, both of which periods probably should be reckoned from the coronation. The Purāṇas agree in assigning 137 years to the Maurya dynasty, but the total of the lengths of reigns, according to the \*Vāyu Purāṇa\*, is only 133. The difference of four years may be accounted for by the interval between the accession and the coronation of Asoka. For further details see Pargiter, \*Dynasties of the Kali Age\*. The variant readings are numerous. ### [c24.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.6) CHAPTER VIII ### [c24.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.7) THE SUNGA, KAṆVA, AND ĀNDHRA DYNASTIES, 185 B.C. TO A. D. \*c.\* 225. ### The Sunga Dynasty ### [c24.s1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.1) PUSHYAMITRA, the commander-in-chief, having slain his master Brihadratha Maurya, usurped the vacant throne, and established himself as sovereign of the now contracted Maurya dominions;¹ thus founding a dynasty known to history as that of the Sungas.² ### [c24.s1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.2) ¹ The Puranic account of Pushyamitra's usurpation is confirmed by Bāṇa (seventh century), who evidently had access to documents now lost. His text is: \*Pratijñā durbalaṁ cha baladarśanavyapadeśa-darśitāśesha-sainyah senānīr anāryo Mauryaṁ Bṛihadrathaṁ pipesha Pushpamitraḥ svāminaṁ\*, which may be translated: 'And reviewing the whole army, under the pretext of showing him his forces, the base-born (\*anārya\*) general Pushpamitra crushed his master, Bṛihadratha the Maurya, who, was weak in keeping his coronation oath (\*pratijñā\*).' The rendering combines the versions of Cowell and Thomas (\*Harṣacarita\*, transl. p. 193), of Bühler (\*Ind. Ant.\*, ii, 363), and of Jayaswal. The best text of the Purāṇas (Pargiter, pp. 31, 70) states simply that 'Pushyamitra, the commander-in-chief, will uproot Bṛihadratha and will rule the kingdom as king 36 years'. ### [c24.s1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.3) ² Manuscripts usually read Pushpamitra, but Pushyamitra is the correct form (Bühler, \*Ind. Ant.\*, ii, 362). Pushyamitra has been shown to be a synonym of Bahasatimitra or Bahaspati of the Khāravela inscription (K. P. Jayaswal, in \*J. B. & O. Res. Soc.\*, Part iv, Dec. 1917, pp. 473–80); and in view of the connexion between Brihaspati and the Pushya asterism, we must accept Pushya as correct. As the name of the founder of the dynasty and some of his descendants ended in \*mitra\*, M. M. Haraparshād Sāstri suggests, in my opinion wrongly, that the Sungas were Persians, worshippers of the sun (Mithra). The Sungas were followers of the \*Sāma Veda\* which is specially concerned with animal sacrifices, and they and the Kaṇvas appear to have led a Brahmanical reaction against Buddhism (\*J. & Proc. A. S. B.\*, 1912, p. 287). K. P. Jayaswal (\*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, iv, Sept. 1918) holds that the Sungas were Brahmans and occupied a high position in the theological world at that early date. Pushyamitra belonged to the family of the royal chaplain (\*purohit\*) of the Mauryas, who though heterodox since Asoka's reign probably retained the family nominally in its old position. According to the author, the later Mauryas were degenerate and politically weak, and Pushyamitra was forced to slay Bṛihadratha in the interests of the empire, which was threatened by the Yāvanas or Bactrian Greeks under Menander. The dynastic name Śuṅga is attested by the Purāṇas, Bāṇa (p. 193), and the Barhut (Bharhut) inscription beginning with \*Suga-naṁ raje\*, 'during the reign of the Śuṅgas' (\*Arch. S. W. I.\* v, 73; \*Ind. Ant.\*, xiv, 138, with facsimile). ### [c24.s1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.4) The capital presumably continued to be, as of old, Pātaliputra, and probably all the central or home provinces of the empire recognized the usurper's authority, which perhaps extended to the south as far as the Narmadā river,¹ and may be assumed to have embraced the territories in the Gangetic basin, corresponding with the modern Bihār, Tirhūt, and the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. It is unlikely that either the later Mauryas or the Śuṅgas exercised any jurisdiction in the Panjāb. Wilson's belief that the arms of Pushyamitra reached the Indus was due to a misunderstanding.² ### [c24.s1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.5) ¹ 'The Queen \[of Agnimitra, son of Pushyamitra\] has a brother of inferior caste, Vīrasena by name; he has been placed by the king in command of a frontier fortress on the banks of the Mandākinī' (Introd. to \*Mālavikāgnimitra\*). Tawney (transl., p. 6) notes that 'the Mandākanī here probably means the Narmadā (Nerbudda). One of the Bombay manuscripts reads the Prākrit equivalent of Narmadā'. But Mr. Pargiter knows only two rivers named Mandākinī, namely, one in the Bānda District of Bundelkhaṇḍ, and the other, a southern tributary of the Godāvarī (\*J. R. A. S.\*, 1894, p. 260). ### [c24.s1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.6) ² Wilson, \*Theatre of the Hindus\*, ii, 353; Cunningham, \*Num. Chron.\*, 1870, p. 227. ### [c24.s1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.7) Pushyamitra did not enjoy his dominions unchallenged. In or about 165 B. C. Khāravela, King of Kalinga, who was descended from the Cheta (Chaitra) family, invaded his territory and advanced to within a few miles of Pātaliputra. Pushyamitra made a strategic withdrawal to Mathurā, and Khāravela apparently considered it wise at the moment not to proceed farther than the Barābar Hills (Gorathagiri). ### [c24.s1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.8) The second invasion of Khāravela, four years later, was, however, more successful. Entering Northern India and marching at the foot of the Himalayas, he suddenly appeared before the capital of Magadha on the north side of the Ganges, which he crossed with the help of the famous elephants of Kalinga. Pushyamitra was forced to submit, and the treasures of his capital were seized by the victor, among them being a statue of the first Jina (Rishabhadeva), which had been carried away from Kalinga three centuries earlier by King Nanda I.³ ### [c24.s1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.9) ³ See K. P. Jayaswal, \*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, vol. iii, Dec. 1917, pp. 425–85; R. D. Banerji, ibid., pp. 486–507. See also J. N. Sikdar, 'A Note on the Cheta Dynasty', \*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, vol. iv, Part i, March, 1918, pp. 99–100. ### [c24.s1.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.10) During the latter years of his reign, Pushyamitra was threatened by serious danger. Menander, a relative of the Bactrian monarch Eukratides, and king of Kābul and the Panjāb, having formed the design of emulating the exploits of Alexander, advanced with a formidable force into the interior of India. He annexed the Indus delta, the peninsula of Surāshtra (Kāthiāwār), and some other territories on the western coast; occupied Mathurā on the Jumna; besieged Madhyamikā (now Nagarī near Chitōr) in Rājputāna; invested Sākētam in Southern Oudh; and threatened Pātaliputra, the capital. ### [c24.s1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.11) The invasion was repelled after a severe struggle, and the Greek king was obliged to retire to his own country, but he may have retained his conquests in Western India for a few years longer.¹ ### [c24.s1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.12) ¹ See Appendix I at end of this chapter, 'The Invasion of Menander, and the Date of Patañjali'. ### [c24.s1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.13) Thus ended the second and last attempt by a European general to conquer India by land. All subsequent invaders from the western continent have come in ships, trusting to their command of the sea, and using it as their base. From the repulse of Menander in or about 153 B. C. until the bombardment of Calicut by Vasco da Gama in A. D. 1502 India enjoyed immunity from attack under European leadership; and so long as the power in occupation of the country retains command of the sea, no attack made from the land side in the footsteps of the ancient invaders can have any prospect of permanent success. ### [c24.s1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.14) During the progress of the war with Menander, the outlying southern provinces extending to the Narmadā river were administered by the Crown Prince, Agnimitra, as viceroy, who had his capital at Vidisā, the modern Bhīlsā on the Betwā in Sindhia's territory. Agnimitra's youthful son, Vasumitra, was employed on active service under the orders of the king, his grandfather. Pushyamitra, who at this time must have been advanced in years, resolved to crown his military successes by substantiating and proclaiming a formal claim to the rank of Lord Paramount of Northern India. His pretensions received confirmation by the success of Agnimitra in a local war with his southern neighbour, the Rāja of Vidarbha (Berār), which resulted in the complete defeat of the Rāja, who was obliged to cede half of his dominions to a rival cousin; the river Varadā (Warda) being constituted the boundary between the two principalities. ### [c24.s1.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.15) Pushyamitra determined to revive and celebrate with appropriate magnificence the antique Vedic rite of the horse-sacrifice (\*aśvamedha\*), which, according to immemorial tradition, could only be performed by a paramount sovereign, and involved as a preliminary a formal and successful challenge to all rival claimants to supreme power, delivered after this fashion:— ### [c24.s1.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.16) ‘A horse of a particular colour was consecrated by the performance of certain ceremonies, and was then turned loose to wander for a year. The king, or his representative, followed the horse with an army, and when the animal entered a foreign country, the ruler of that country was bound either to fight or to submit. If the liberator of the horse succeeded in obtaining or enforcing the submission of all the countries over which it passed, he returned in triumph with all the vanquished Rājas in his train; but, if he failed, he was disgraced, and his pretensions ridiculed. After his successful return, a great festival was held, at which the horse was sacrificed.’¹ ### [c24.s1.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.17) ¹ Dowson, \*Classical Dict.\*, s. v. \*Aśvamedha\*. See also Barnett, \*Antiquities of India\* (1913), pp. 169–71. The rite was ‘known to the Ṛigveda (2. 161, 162)’ : originally it was ‘not improbably a sacrifice offered to the sun’ (Macdonell in \*J. R. A. S.\*, 1916, p. 624). ### [c24.s1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.18) The command, at least nominally, of the guard attendant on the consecrated steed liberated by Pushyamitra was entrusted to his young grandson, Vasumitra, who is said to have encountered and routed a band of certain Yavanas, or western foreigners, who took up the challenge on the banks of the river Sindhu, which now forms the boundary between Bundēlkhand and the Rājputāna states.² These disputants may have been part of the division of Menander’s army which had undertaken the siege of Madhyamikā in Rājputāna. ### [c24.s1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.19) ² Not the Indus. ### [c24.s1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.20) The Yavanas and all other rivals having been disposed of in due course, Pushyamitra was justified in his claim to rank as the paramount power of Northern India, and straightway proceeded to announce his success by a magnificent celebration of the sacrifice at his capital. The dramatist, who has so well preserved the traditions of the time, professes to record the very words of the invitation addressed by the victorious king to his son the Crown Prince, as follows :— ### [c24.s1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.21) ‘May it be well with thee ! From the sacrificial enclosure the commander-in-chief Pushpamitra sends this message to his son Agnimitra, who is in the territory of Vidisā, affectionately embracing him. Be it known unto thee that I, having been consecrated for the \*Rājasūya\* sacrifice,¹ let loose free from all check or curb a horse which was to be brought back after a year, appointing Vasumitra as its defender, girt with a guard of a hundred Rājpūts. This very horse wandering on the right \[or “south”\] bank of the Sindhu was claimed by a cavalry squadron of the Yavanas. Then there was a fierce struggle between the two forces. Then Vasumitra, the mighty bowman, having overcome his foes, rescued by force my excellent horse, which they were endeavouring to carry off. Accordingly, I will now sacrifice, having had my horse brought back to me by my grandson, even as Ansumat brought back the horse to Sagara. Therefore, you must dismiss anger from your mind, and without delay come with my daughters-in-law to behold the sacrifice.’² ### [c24.s1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.22) ¹ The \*rājasūya\* was a ceremony of consecration of a king. The full ritual lasted for twelve months. It is explained in detail by R. L. Mitra in \*J. A. S. B.\*, part i, vol. xlv (1876), pp. 386–98 ; and by Barnett, \*Antiquities of India\* (1913), p. 167. ### [c24.s1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.23) ² \*Mālavikāgnimitra\*, ‘The Story of Mālavikā and Agnimitra’, Act v, transl. Tawney, p. 78, with the substitution of the word ‘forces’ for ‘hosts’, which is not suitable. Abstracts of the plot are given by Wilson (\*Theatre of the Hindus\*, vol. i, pp. 348–53, and Sylvain Lévi, \*Théâtre Indien\*, pp. 166–70). It has been edited by Tullberg (Bonn, 1840), and translated into English by Tawney (Calcutta, 1875), into German by Weber (Berlin, 1856), and twice into French, first by Foucaux, and later by Victor Henry (Paris, 1877, 1889). The historical tradition seems to be authentic. Kālidāsa, the author, probably lived during the Gupta period in the fifth century. H. C. Chakladar places him definitely in the early years of the fifth century during the reign of Chandragupta Vikramāditya (‘Studies in the Kāmasutra of Vatsyayana’, \*J. B. & O. Res. Soc.\*, 1919, vol. v, Part ii, p. 199). For the Sagara legend see Dowson, \*Classical Dictionary\*, s. v. ### [c24.s1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.24) The performance of the solemn rite probably was witnessed by the celebrated grammarian Patañjali, who alludes to the event in terms which imply that it occurred in his time. ### [c24.s1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.25) The exaggerated regard for the sanctity of animal life, which was one of the most cherished features of Buddhism, and the motive of Asoka's most characteristic legislation, had necessarily involved the prohibition of bloody sacrifices, which are essential to certain forms of Brahmanical worship, and were believed by the orthodox to possess the highest saving efficacy. The memorable horse-sacrifice of Pushyamitra marked an early stage in the Brahmanical reaction, which was fully developed five centuries later in the time of Samudragupta and his successors. ### [c24.s1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.26) If credit may be given to the semi-mythological stories of Buddhist writers, Pushyamitra was not content with the peaceful revival of Hindu rites, but indulged in a savage persecution of Buddhism, burning monasteries and slaying monks from Magadha to Jālandhar, in the Panjāb. Many monks who escaped his sword are said to have fled into the territories of other rulers. It would be rash to reject this tale as wholely baseless, although it may be exaggerated.¹ ### [c24.s1.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.27) ¹ Tāranāth, Schiefner's transl., p. 81; \*Divyāvadāna\* in Burnouf, \*Introduction\*, 2nd ed., p. 384. Tāranāth, probably with truth, represents Pushyamitra as a Brahman, the domestic priest (\*purohit\*) of a certain king. ### [c24.s1.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.28) Although the alleged proscription of Buddhism by Pushyamitra is supported by some evidence, it is true that the gradual extinction of that religion in India was due in the main to causes other than persecution; while it is also true that from time to time fanatic kings indulged in savage outbursts of cruelty, and committed genuine acts of persecution directed against Jains or Buddhists as such. Well-established instances of such proceedings will be met with in the course of this history, and others, which do not come within its limits, are on record. That such outbreaks of wrath should have occurred is not wonderful, if we consider the extreme oppressiveness of the Jain and Buddhist prohibitions when ruthlessly enforced, as they certainly were by some Rājas, and presumably by Asoka. The wonder rather is that persecutions were so rare, and that as a rule the various sects managed to live together in harmony, and in the enjoyment of fairly impartial official favour.¹ ### [c24.s1.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.29) ¹ The reality of religious persecution of Buddhism in India, denied by Rhys Davids (\*J. Pāli Text Soc.\*, 1896, pp. 87–92), is affirmed by Hodgson, Sewell, and Watters (ibid., pp. 107–10). The instance of Śaśāṅka, described by the nearly contemporary Hiuen Tsang (Beal, \*Records\*, i, 212, ii, 42, 91, 118, 121), is fully proved. The case against Mihirakula is almost as strong. In ancient times Tibet and Khotan were closely connected with India. Tibetan history records a persecution of Buddhism by king Glang Darma (Langdarma), about \*A. D.\* 840 (Rockhill, \*Life of the Buddha\*, pp. 226, 243), and a similar event is recorded in Khotan annals, shortly before A. D. 741 (ibid., pp. 243–5; Sarat Chandra Dās, \*J. A. S. B.\*, pt. I, 1886, p. 200). A terrible persecution of the cognate religion Jainism occurred in Southern India in the seventh century (Elliot, \*Coins of Southern India\*, p. 126; \*post\*, ch. xvi, sec. 2). Ajayadeva, a 'Śaiva king of Gujarāt (A. D. 1174–6), began his reign by a merciless persecution of the Jains, torturing their leader to death' (\*Archaeol. S. W. I.\*, vol. ix, p. 16). Several other well-established instances of severe persecution might be cited. ### [c24.s1.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.30) When Pushyamitra, some five years subsequent to the retreat of Menander, died, after a long and eventful reign, he was succeeded by his son the Crown Prince, Agnimitra, who had governed the southern provinces during his father's lifetime. He reigned but a few years, and was succeeded by Vasujyeshṭha, or Sujyeshṭha, probably a brother, who was followed seven years later by Vasumitra, presumably that son of Agnimitra who as a youth had guarded the sacrificial horse on behalf of his aged grandfather. The next four reigns are said to have been abnormally short, amounting together to only seventeen years. The inference that the extreme brevity of these reigns indicates a period of confusion during which palace revolutions were frequent is confirmed by the one incident of the time which has survived in tradition. Sumitra, another son of Agnimitra, who was, we are told, inordinately devoted to the stage, was surprised when in the midst of his favourite actors by one Mitradeva, who 'severed his head with a scimitar, as a lotus is shorn from its stalk'.² The ninth king, Bhāgavata, is credited with a long reign of thirty-two years, but we know little about him.³ The tenth king, Devabhūti or Devabhūmi, was, we are assured, a man of licentious habits, and lost his life while engaged in a discreditable intrigue. The dynasty thus came to an unhonoured end after having occupied the throne for a hundred and twelve years.¹ ### [c24.s1.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.31) ² Bāṇa, \*Harṣa-carita\*, ch. vi; Cowell and Thomas, transl., p. 192. ### [c24.s1.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.32) ³ There is an inscription of his on the stump of a Garuḍa pillar at Besnagar, 'when he had been crowned twelve years' (\*A. S. Rep. I.\*, 1913–14, pt. II, p. 190). See \*I. M. Catalogue\*, p. 146. ### [c24.s1.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s1.33) ¹ The 'Mitra' coins, of several kinds, found in Oudh, Rohilkhaṇḍ, Gōrakhpur, &c., probably belong to the Śuṅgas, though only one name on the coins, that of Agnimitra, agrees with the Purāṇic lists. But this may be due to the fact that the Śuṅgas apparently had alternative names (K. P. Jayaswal in \*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, iii). For detailed descriptions see Carlleyle and Rivett-Carnac, \*J. A. S. B.\*, 1880, pt. i, pp. 21–8, 87–90, with plates; Cunningham, \*Coins of Ancient India\*, pp. 69, 74, 79, 93; \*Catal. of Coins in I. M.\*, vol. i, p. 184. The most authentic version of the Śuṅga history, according to the Purāṇas, as translated from the eclectic text, is as follows:— 'Puṣyamitra the commander-in-chief will uproot Bṛhadratha and will rule the kingdom as king 36 years. \*His\* son Agnimitra will be king 8 years. Vasujyeṣṭha will be king 7 years. \*His\* son Vasumitra will be king 10 years. Then his son Andhraka (Odraka) will reign 2 years. Pulindaka will then reign 3 years. \*His\* son Ghoṣa will be king 3 years. Next Vajramitra will be king 9 years. Bhāgavata will be king 32 years. His son Devabhūmi will reign 10 years. These ten Śuṅga kings will enjoy this earth full 112 years. From them the earth will pass to the Kāṇvas' (Pargiter, \*Dynasties of the Kali Age\*, pp. 30, 70. Variant readings are given in the notes). The details of the length of reigns do not agree with the total, 112. ### The Kāṇva or Kāṇvāyana Dynasty ### [c24.s2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.1) The plot which cost the royal debauchee, Devabhūti, his throne and life was contrived by his Brahman minister Vasudeva, who seems to have controlled the state even during the lifetime of his nominal master.² Mitradeva, the slayer of Prince Sumitra, probably belonged to the same powerful family, which is known to history as that of the Kāṇvas, or Kāṇvāyanas. The distinct testimony of both the Purāṇas and Bāṇa that Devabhūti, the tenth and last Śuṅga, was the person slain by Vasudeva, the first Kāṇva, forbids the acceptance of Professor Bhandarkar's theory that the Kāṇva dynasty should be regarded as contemporary with the Śuṅga.³ ### [c24.s2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.2) ² 'In a frenzy of passion the over-libidinous Çuṅga was at the instance of his minister Vasudeva reft of his life by a daughter of Devabhūti's slave-woman disguised as his queen' (Bāṇa, \*Harṣa-carita\*, ch. vi, transl. Cowell and Thomas, p. 193). 'The minister Vasudeva, forcibly overthrowing the dissolute king Devabhūmi because of his youth, will become king among the Śuṅgas' (Pargiter, p. 71). ### [c24.s2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.3) ³ \*E. Hist. of Dekkan\*, 2nd ed. in \*Bomb. Gaz.\*, vol. i, pt. ii, p. 163. I adopted this theory in my 'Andhra Dynasty' (\*Z. D. M. G.\*, 1902, p. 658)—but now reject it. ### [c24.s2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.4) Vasudeva seized the throne rendered vacant by his crime, and was succeeded by three of his descendants. The whole dynasty, comprising four reigns, covers a period of only forty-five years.¹ The figures indicate, as in the case of the Śuṅgas, that the times were disturbed, and that succession to the throne was often effected by violent means. Nothing whatever is known about the reigns of any of the Kāṇva kings.² The last of them was slain about 28 or 27 B. C. by a king of the Āndhra or Sātavāhana dynasty, which at that time possessed wide dominions stretching across the tableland of the Deccan from sea to sea. Although no coins or monuments connecting the Āndhra kings with Pāṭaliputra, the ancient imperial capital, have yet been discovered, it is possible that they may have controlled the kingdom of Magadha for a time. The most ancient coins of the dynasty at present known are of northern type, and bear the name of Sāta, probably Sātakarni, the sixth king in the Purāṇic list, who was reigning about 150 B. C. The Āndhra coinage from first to last has many obvious affinities with the mintages of the north, which may be explained by the hypothesis that the dynasty really held Magadha as a dependency for a considerable period. But there is little evidence to support such a conjecture.³ ### [c24.s2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.5) ¹ The Purāṇic text is:— ‘He \[\*scil.\* Vasudeva\], 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 Śuṅgabhṛtya \[\*scil.\* servants of the Śuṅgas\] Kāṇvāyana kings. These 4 Kāṇva brahmans will enjoy the earth; for 45 years they will enjoy this earth. They will have the neighbouring kings in subjection and will be righteous. In succession to them the earth will pass to the Āndhras’ (Pargiter, p. 71; variants in the notes). The details of the length of reigns agree with the total, 45. ### [c24.s2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.6) ² The coins of Bhūmimitra seem to belong to the Kāṇva dynasty, and also probably the Deva coins (\*I. M. Catalogue\*). ### [c24.s2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.7) ³ See the author’s paper on the ‘Āndhra Coinage’ in \*Z. D. M. G.\*, 1903, pp. 605–27. An ancient Tamil poem, the \*Chilappathikāram\*, mentions the visit of a Chera prince to a Sātakarna king of Magadha (V. K. Pillai, \*The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago\*, p. 6). ### [c24.s2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.8) The Purāṇas treat the whole Āndhra dynasty as following the Kāṇva, and consequently identify the slayer of the last Kāṇva prince with Simuka or Sipraka, the first of the Āndhra line. But, as a matter of fact, the independent Āndhra dynasty must have begun about 240 or 230 B. C.,¹ long before the suppression of the Kāṉvas about 28 B. C., and the Āndhra king who slew Susarman cannot possibly have been Simuka. It is impossible to affirm with certainty who he was, because the dates of accession of the several Āndhra princes are not known with accuracy. All that can be affirmed at present is that the slayer of Susarman, the last Kāṉva, apparently must have been one or other of three Āndhra kings, namely Nos. 11, 12, or 13. The year 28 B. C. may be accepted as the approximately true date of the extinction of the Kāṉva dynasty; because it depends, not on the duration assigned to each several Āndhra reign, but on the periods of 112 and 45 years respectively allotted to the Sunga and Kāṉva dynasties, which seem worthy of credence; and this date, 28 B. C., apparently must fall within the limits of one or other of the three Āndhra reigns named above.² ### [c24.s2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.9) ¹ The name of the Āndhra nation is extremely ancient, being mentioned in the \*Aitareya Brāhmaṇa\* (vii, 18), 'a work which was certainly composed prior to 500 B. C.' (D. R. Bhandarkar, \*Ind. Ant.\* xlvii (1916), p. 70). The Āndhras are there represented as a Dasyu race, living on the fringes of the Aryan settlements and descended from Viśvāmitra. ### [c24.s2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s2.10) ² Close of Maurya dynasty, c. 185 B. C.; from which deduct 112+45=157, leaving 28. ### The Āndhra or Andhra Dynasty ### [c24.s3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.1) Before proceeding to narrate the history of the Āndhra kings after the extinction of the Kāṉva dynasty we must cast back a glance to the more distant past, and trace the steps by which the Āndhra kingdom became one of the greatest powers in India. ### [c24.s3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.2) In the days of Chandragupta Maurya and Megasthenes, ths Āndhra nation, a Dravidian people, mentioned in the \*Aitareya Brahmana\* of very early date, and now represented by the large population speaking the Telugu language, occupied the deltas of the Godāvarī and Krishnā (Kistna) rivers on the eastern side of India, and was reputed to possess a military force second only to that at the command of the king of the Prasii, Chandragupta Maurya. The Andhra territory included thirty walled towns, besides numerous villages, and the army consisted of 100,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry, and 1,000 elephants.¹ The capital of the state is believed to have been then Srī Kākulam, on the lower course of the Krishnā.² The nation thus described evidently was independent. ### [c24.s3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.3) ¹ Pliny, \*Hist. Nat.\*, Book vi, 21, 22, 23, from information probably supplied by Megasthenes. The passage is fully discussed in the author's monograph, 'Āndhra History and Coinage' (\*Z. D. M. G.\*, 1902, 1903), to which reference may be made by readers desirous of examining in detail the sources of Āndhra history. See P. T. Srinivas Iyengar, 'Misconceptions about the Āndhras' (\*Ind. Ant.\*, (Nov., 1913), pp. 276–8). He argues that the Āndhras must have spoken Prākrit, not Telugu, and that their rule spread from west to east down the river valleys, and not as stated in the text. ### [c24.s3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.4) ² Burgess, 'The Stūpas of Amarāvatī and Jaggayapeta', \*A.S.S.I.\*, p. 3 (referring to Wilson, \*Mackenzie MSS.\*, vol. i, introd. p. cxvii, and Campbell, \*Telugu Grammar\*, introd. p. ii). The site of the ancient town (N. lat. 20° 28′, E. long. 85° 55′) has been cut away by the river (Rea, \*Proc. Govt. Madras, Public\*, No. 423, dated June 18, 1892). ### [c24.s3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.5) When next mentioned in Asoka's edicts (256 B. C.) they were reckoned among the tribes and nations resident in or adjoining the outer circle of the empire, and perhaps subject to the imperial command, although doubtless enjoying a considerable degree of autonomy under their own Rāja.³ The withdrawal of the strong arm of Asoka was the signal for the disruption of his vast empire. While the home provinces continued to obey his feeble successors upon the throne of Pātaliputra, the distant governments, including Kalinga, which he had taken so much trouble to annex, shook off the imperial yoke and reasserted their independence. ### [c24.s3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.6) ³ 'And likewise here, in the king's dominions, among the Yonas and Kambojas, in (?) Nābhaka of the Nābhitis, among the Bhojas and Pitinikas (? see p. 193, \*note\* 2, \*ante\*), among the Andhras and Pulindas, everywhere men follow the Law of Piety as proclaimed by His Majesty' (Rock Edict XII). ### [c24.s3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.7) The Āndhras were not slow to take advantage of the opportunity given by the death of the great emperor, and very soon after the close of his reign, or possibly even before its close, to assert their independent power under the government of a king named Simuka. The new dynasty extended its sway with such extraordinary rapidity that, in the reign of the second king, Krishna (Kanha), the town of Nāsik, near the source of the Godāvarī in the Western Ghāts, was included in the Āndhra dominions, which thus stretched across India. ### [c24.s3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.8) The third king, Srī Sātakarṇi, who is described as Lord of the West, was defied by Khāravela, king of Kalinga in the east, which kingdom also had recovered its independence after the death of Asoka.¹ ### [c24.s3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.9) ¹ The Udayagiri or Hāthigumphā inscription of Khāravela, the Jain king of Kalinga, has now been edited by K. P. Jayaswal and R. D. Banerji in \*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, iii, pp. 425–507, with good facsimiles. The inscription is dated in the year 165/164 of 'Rājā Muriya', \*scil.\* Chandragupta. We learn that Khāravela, surnamed Mahā Meghavāhana, the third of the Cheta or Chaitra dynasty of Kalinga, was anointed as Mahārāja when twenty-four years of age, having been already Crown Prince (\*yuvarāja\*) for nine years. In his second year he defied Sātakarṇi, by sending an army to the west. In his fifth year he repaired an aqueduct which had not been used for 300 years from the time of king Nanda, and in the same year, harassed the king of Rājagriha, i. e. of Magadha. In his twelfth year he watered his elephants in the Ganges, and compelled the king of Magadha to bow at his feet. In his thirteenth year he erected certain pillars. The Nanda king mentioned in the inscription must be Nandivardhana or Nanda I, the date of whose accession as counted back from the fifth year of Khāravela approximates very closely to the date deduced by K. P. Jayaswal from the date in the dynastic lists of the Purāṇas (R. D. Banerji in \*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, iii, Dec. 1917), pp. 497–99). The Āndhra king alluded to can only be Śrī Sātakarṇi, No. 3 of the Purāṇic list, who is commemorated by a defaced, but happily inscribed, relief image at Nānāghāṭ, a pass leading from the Konkan to the ancient town of Junnār in the Poona District, Bombay (\*A. S. W. I.\*, vol. v, p. 59). The synchronism of Sātakarṇi I with Khāravela proves conclusively that the Āndhra dynasty cannot have begun with the death of the last Kāṇva king. The date assigned to Sātakarṇi I is in full accord with the script of the Nānāghāṭ inscriptions, which include similar records of the first and second Āndhra kings, Simuka and Krishṇa (Lüders, \*op. cit.\*, Nos. 1113, 1114, 1144). The king of Magadha whom Khāravēla defeated was Pushyamitra of the Śuṅga dynasty. ### [c24.s3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.10) Nothing more is heard of the Āndhra kings until one of them, as above related, in or about 28 B.C., slew the last of the Kāṇvas, and no doubt annexed the territory, whatever it may have been, which still recognized the authority of that dynasty. The Āndhra kings all claimed to belong to the Sātavāhana family, and many of them assumed the title or bore the name of Sātakarṇi. They are consequently often referred to by one or other of these designations, without mention of the personal name of the monarch, and it is thus sometimes impossible to ascertain which king is alluded to. As already observed, the real name of the slayer of Susarman Kāṇva is not known. ### [c24.s3.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.11) The name of Hāla, the seventeenth king, by virtue of its association with literary tradition, possesses special interest. The anthology of erotic verses, written in the ancient dialect of Mahārāshtra, and entitled \*Saptaśataka\*, or ‘Seven Centuries’, professes to be the composition of Hāla, and is ascribed by tradition to Sālivāhana, another form of Sātavāhana. Prof. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar therefore has suggested that probably either king Hāla may have been the author of the work, or it may have been dedicated to him.¹ Other traditions also associate literature written in Prākrit with kings of the Āndhra dynasty. In their time and territory Sanskrit, apparently, was not in ordinary use as the language of polite literature. ### [c24.s3.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.12) ¹ \*Early Hist. of the Dekkan\*, 2nd ed., in \*Bomb. Gaz.\* (1896), vol. i, pt. ii, p. 171. M. M. Haraparshad Shastri (\*Ep. Ind.\*, xii, 320) notes that Hāla ‘cannot be placed later than the first century A. D.’, and that the \*Saptaśatī\* (as he calls it) mentions a king named Vikramāditya, who \*may\* be the founder of the era. ### [c24.s3.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.13) During the reigns of kings No. 23, Rāja Gautamīputra Srī Sātakarni, and No. 24, Rāja Vāsishtīputra Srī Pulumāyi, the Āndhras engaged in conflicts with the foreign tribes which had formed settlements and carved out kingdoms in Western India, subordinate apparently at first to the Indo-Parthian and subsequently to the Kushān sovereigns. Such conflicts between indigenous Rājas and alien chiefs frequently recur in the history of ancient India. ### [c24.s3.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.14) The story of the foreign settlements in the regions now mostly included in the Bombay Presidency is fragmentary and obscure, but can be made out to some extent from study of coins and inscriptions. The earliest foreign ruler in the west whose name has been preserved was the Satrap Bhūmaka Kshaharāta, who struck coins with Parthian affinities, and may be presumed to have been subordinate to one or other of the Indo-Parthian kings, perhaps Gondophares. His exact date is not known, but he may be assigned approximately to the early years of the first century after Christ, and may have had predecessors. The Kshaharātas were connected with the Sakas, and may have immigrated from Sakastēnē, the modern Sīstān. ### [c24.s3.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.15) The next recorded Kshaharāta chief is Nahapāna, who may or may not have been the immediate successor of Bhūmaka, and may be assigned approximately to the middle of the first century after Christ, or possibly earlier. His name indicates Persian origin. At first he held the rank of Satrap, like Bhūmaka, but subsequently assumed the higher style of Great Satrap (\*mahākshatrapa\*), and was also known by the Indian title of Rāja. His dominions comprised a large area, extending from Southern Rājputāna as far northward as Ajmēr and Pushkar, to the Nāsik and Poona Districts in the Western Ghāts, and including the peninsula of Surāshtra or Kāthiāwār. His titles of Satrap and Great Satrap indicate subordination to a northern power, which can only have been that of the Kushāns.¹ ### [c24.s3.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.16) ¹ D. R. Bhandarkar regards him as a viceroy of Kadphises II (\*Ind. Ant.\*, xlvii (1918), p. 76) and also of Kadphises I, who is called simply Kushāna in the Taxila scroll inscription of the year 136. The \*Kuśana\* of the Nāsik inscription 12 seems to mean the silver coinage of Nahapāna, who, like Kadphises I, imitated Roman coins. The varying heads on his coins appear to be merely imitations and not portraits at all. Minnagala, which according to the \*Periplus\* was the capital of Nahapāna, may be identified with Mandasor, in accordance with the latitude and longitude given by Ptolemy, nearly 2 degrees E. and 2 degrees N. of Barygaza. ### [c24.s3.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.17) The Āndhra king, No. 23, Rāja Gautamīputra Srī Sātakarṇi, who may be assumed to have come to the throne about the beginning of the second century A. D., succeeded in extirpating the Kshaharāta dynasty and annexing their dominions about A. D. 119. He signalized his victory by calling in the money issued by the vanquished princes during many years, restamping it in a crude fashion with his own insignia. At the height of his power he was master of the whole country watered by the Godāvarī, Berar, Mālwā, Kāthiāwār, Gujarāt, and the north Konkan.² He posed as the champion of the Hindu religions, including both Brahmanical Hinduism and Buddhism, as against the creeds of casteless foreigners, Sakas, Pahlavas, and others, and prided himself on having re-established the practice of caste rules. He thus ‘restored the glory of the Sātavāhana race’, and was in a position to gratify his Hindu sentiment by liberal donations to both Brahmans and Buddhists. It is a curious fact that, although the Āndhra kings clearly were officially Brahmanical Hindus, most of their recorded donations were made to Buddhist institutions. ### [c24.s3.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.18) ² D. R. Bhandarkar in \*Ind. Ant.\*, xlvii, 1918, ‘Dekkan of the Sātavāhana Period’. ### [c24.s3.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.19) About A. D. 128 Rāja Gautamīputra Srī Sātakarṇi was succeeded by his son, Rāja Vāsishṭhīputra Srī Pulumāyi, who had been his colleague,¹ and reigned for some thirty years. He was married to a daughter of Rudradāman I, the Saka Great Satrap of Ujjain, but the matrimonial connexion did not prevent the Great Satrap from twice defeating his son-in-law and taking from him most of the territory which Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi had won from the Kshaharātas. The relationship, however, so far influenced the victor that he did not proceed to extremities, as he would have done to a stranger. The aggrandizement of Rudradāman I must have been largely completed before A. D. 130, by which date he was in possession of Cutch, and certainly before A. D. 150, because we know that shortly after that date he placed on record a list of the numerous regions in Western India which owned his sway. ### [c24.s3.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.20) ¹ During his conjoint reign with Pulumāyi, Gautamīputra Srī Sātakarṇi held sway over Āndhradesa, the hereditary Sātavāhana dominion, and Pulumāyi over Mahārāshtra (the Deccan) (D. R. Bhandarkar, \*ibid.\*). ### [c24.s3.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.21) Rudradāman I, a learned and accomplished prince, who thus raised his house to the position of the leading power in the West, was the grandson of the great Satrap Chashtaṇa, whose coins in silver and copper, inscribed with Greek, Brahmī, and Kharoshṭhī legends, are found in Gujarāt. The events of Chashtaṇa's reign are not on record, but his approximate date is easily ascertained from the facts that his grandson is known to have been reigning in A. D. 130 and 150. Chashtaṇa, therefore, may be placed in the period from about A. D. 80 to 110. These dates imply that Chashtaṇa held his office as Great Satrap under the Kushān dynasty, that is to say, under Kadphises II, according to my chronology.² The Saka satraps of Surāshtra and Mālwa naturally followed the examples of their Kushān sovereigns by using the Saka era, then newly established. The abundance of dated coins and inscriptions permits of no doubt as to the outlines of the chronology of the dynasty founded by Chashtana, the history of which will be further noticed in connexion with the Gupta kings. ### [c24.s3.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.22) ² Bühler long ago recognized the true relation between Chashtaṇa and the Indo-Scythian kings. See transl. in \*Ind. Ant.\*, 1913, p. 189, of his old essay on Indian Inscriptions, &c. The Girnār inscription records the bursting of the dam of the lake in A. D. 150, but the record itself must have been incised some years later (ibid., p. 190). Benoytosh Bhattacharya in \*J. B. O. Res. Soc.\*, vi (1920), pp. 51–3, declares that the name on one of the two statues discovered with the statue of Kanishka at Mat, 9 miles north of Mathurā, is 'Chastana'. K. P. Jayaswal (ibid., v (1919), p. 511) accepts Bhattacharya's reading, and points out that the fact that this statue was found in the same \*Devakula\* as the statue of Kanishka justifies the view that Chastana was a relative of Kanishka and belonged to the same family. ### [c24.s3.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.23) After the death of Vāsishtīputra Pulumāyi about A. D. 156, the only notable Āndhra monarch was Gautamīputra Yajna Srī, who reigned for twenty-nine years, from about A. D. 166. His rare silver coins, imitating the satrap coinage, certainly prove a renewal of relations with the western satraps, and probably point to unrecorded conquests. It would seem that Yajna Srī must have renewed the struggle in which Pulumāyi II had been worsted, and that he recovered some of the provinces lost by that prince. The silver coins would then have been struck for circulation in the conquered western districts, just as similar coins were minted by Chandra-gupta Vikramāditya when he finally shattered the power of the Saka satraps. The numerous and varied, although rude, bronze and leaden coins of Yajna Srī, which formed the currency of the eastern provinces, confirm the testimony of inscriptions by which the prolonged duration of his reign is attested.¹ Some pieces bearing the figure of a ship probably should be referred to this reign, and suggest the inference that Yajna Srī's power was not confined to the land. ### [c24.s3.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.24) ¹ R. G. Bhandarkar's notion that the Āndhra dynasty comprised two distinct lines of kings, one western and one eastern, does not seem to be tenable. The evidence shows that most of the kings held both the western and eastern provinces. ### [c24.s3.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.25) His successors, apparently, in the eastern provinces, named Vijaya, Chandra Srī, and Pulumāyi IV, with whom the long series of Āndhra kings came to an end about A. D. 225, are mere names; but the real existence of Chandra Srī is attested by the discovery of a few leaden coins bearing his name.¹ Research probably will detect coins struck by both his next predecessor and immediate successor. ### [c24.s3.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.26) ¹ \*Catal. Coins I. M.\*, vol. i, p. 209; Rapson, \*Catal. of Coins of the Andhra Dynasty, &c.\* (1908), pp. 30–3. Rapson is inclined to assign an earlier date to these coins. D. R. Bhandarkar (‘Dekkan of the Sātavāhana Period’, \*Ind. Ant.\*, xlvii (1918), p. 149 ff.) states that Vāsishtīputra Pulumāyi was succeeded by his brothers Śiva-Śrī-Sātakarṇi and Srī-Chandra-Sātī in turn, and that Gautamīputra Yajña Śrī was the last prince of the dynasty. He suggests that the latter was master of Āndhradesa and Mahārāshtra and that he probably seized Kāthiāwār and Eastern Mālwā from the Kshaharāta dynasty of Ujjain as his ancestor, the Āndhra king No. 23, had done before him. ### [c24.s3.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.27) The testimony of the Purānas that the dynasty endured for either 456 or 460 years, or, in round numbers, four centuries and a half, appears to be substantially accurate. The number of the kings also appears to be correctly stated as having been thirty. The following dynastic list has been constructed on the assumption that the best texts of the Purānas are right in fixing the number of kings as thirty, and therefore omits an extra king, No. 24 \*a\*, who appears only in a single manuscript of the \*Vāyu Purāṇa\*.² ### [c24.s3.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.28) ² For the list see App. J. ### [c24.s3.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.29) Professor D. R. Bhandarkar has given a description, based upon the rock and cave inscriptions of Western India, of the social and economic features of the Deccan during the sway of the Āndhras.³ Both Buddhism and Brahmanic Hinduism flourished at that period. Almost all the Buddhist caves in the Deccan were excavated under the rule of this dynasty, villages and lands being granted to defray the cost of their maintenance and to provide also for the sustenance of the \*Bhikshus\* who inhabited the caves during the rainy season. The provision of new robes for these mendicants was secured by the investment of funds in one of the craft-guilds (\*sreni\*), established in the neighbouring towns. The popularity of Brahmanism is apparent from the fact that Royalty performed many sacrifices, including the \*Aśvamedha\* and \*Gavāmayana\*, and paid heavy \*dakshina\* to Brahmans. The worship of Siva was popular, and also the cult of Krishna under the names Samkarshana and Vāsudeva, while Indra and Dharma were widely revered. There seems to have been little or no antagonism between the two faiths, for the followers of Brahmanism excavated several caves for Buddhist monks, while foreigners like the Sakas and Ābhiras freely embraced either religion and assumed Hindu names. ### [c24.s3.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.30) ³ \*Ind. Ant.\*, xlviii (1919), pp. 77 ff. ### [c24.s3.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.31) Society was officially divided into at least four classes, the highest class being composed of the Mahārathis, the Mahābhojas, and the Mahāsenāpatīs, who were feudatory chieftains in charge of \*rashtras\* or districts, the Mahābhojas being located in the north Konkan, and the Mahārathis in the country above the Western Ghāts. The second class comprised both officials and non-officials, among the former being the Amātyas and Mahāmātras, and the Bhāndāgārikas, who were in charge of the treasuries; while the latter included the \*Naigama\* (merchant), the \*Sārthavāha\* (head of a caravan of traders), and the \*Sresthin\* (head of a trade-guild). In the third class were the \*Lekhaka\* (scribe), \*Vaidya\* (physician), \*Hālakīya\* (cultivator), \*Suvarnakāra\* (goldsmith) and \*Gāndhika\* (druggist). The fourth class included the \*Vardhaki\* (carpenter), \*Mālākāra\* (gardener), \*Lohavanija\* (blacksmith), and \*Dāsaka\* (fisherman). The mercantile and cultivating classes were apparently subdivided into various \*grihas\* (homesteads) or \*kutumbas\* or \*kulas\* (families), the head of each of which was considered of sufficient importance to be designated respectively \*Grihapati\* or \*Kutumbin\*. ### [c24.s3.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.32) The currency of the country consisted of \*kārshāpanas\*, which were both silver and copper; \*suvarnas\*, the gold coins of the Kushān kings, one of which was equal in value to 35 silver \*kārshāpanas\*; and \*kusanas\*, a silver coinage probably introduced by Nahapāna or another Saka ruler, eight of which were equivalent to nine silver \*kārshāpanas\*. ### [c24.s3.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24.s3.33) Craft-guilds were a feature of the age. At Govardhan, near Nāsik, there were guilds of oil-pressers, hydraulic machine-artisans, potters, and weavers; while at Junnar there were similar guilds of corn-dealers, bamboo-workers, and braziers. These guilds acted as banks, in which money could be deposited at interest, such deposits being always made in the indigenous currency (\*kārshāpanas\*). Permanent endowments, such as those for religious purposes, were publicly proclaimed and registered in the records of a \*nigama-sabha\* or town-assembly. _First 82 of 90 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24)_ ## Linked texts (23) - [Aitareyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.aitreya.7.18) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [Vāyupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.vayu) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Divyāvadāna](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.avadana.divyavadana) — Sanskrit - [Gāhāsattasaī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.kavya.prakrit.sattasai) — Hāla, Māhārāṣṭrī Prakrit - [Cilappatikāram](https://indike.org/pramana/in.sangam.five_great_epics.cilappatikaram) — Iḷaṅkō Aṭikaḷ, Tamil - [Mālavikāgnimitra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.udayana.malavikagnimitra) — Kālidāsa, Sanskrit - [Harṣacarita](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.harsacarita) — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit - [Mahāvaṃsa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.theravada_postcanon.vamsa.mahavamsa) — Pāli - [Minor Rock Edict I](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.asoka.mre.mre1) — Prakrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg) — Sanskrit - [Ἰνδικά](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.gr.hellenistic.megasthenes) — Μεγασθένης, Ancient Greek - [Major Rock Edict III](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.asoka.re.re03) — Prakrit - [Purāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana) — Sanskrit - [Viṣṇupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.visnu) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Major Rock Edict IV](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.asoka.re.re04) — Prakrit - [Minor Pillar Edicts](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.asoka.mpe) - [玄奘](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.cn.tang.xuanzang) — Classical Chinese - [Pillar Edict VI](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.asoka.pe.pe6) — Prakrit - [Major Rock Edict XII](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.asoka.re.re12) — Prakrit - [Bāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.deccan.bana) - [Bharhut](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.bharhut) - [Barâbar Hills](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.barabar-hills) - [Bhārhut inscription (No. 84)](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.bharhut.bharhut-inscription-no-84) — Prakrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.general.smith-1924.c24) · Pramāṇa