The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c26: Appendix J. The Āndhras and Connected Dynasties
The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c26
- Language
- English
Contents
Appendix J. The Āndhras and Connected Dynasties
c26.2
The inscriptions and coins of both the Āndhras and the connected dynasties are fully discussed in Rapson, *Catalogue of the Coins of the Āndhra Dynasty*, &c., B. M., 1908, but the inscriptions are most conveniently cited by the numbers in Prof. H. Lüders's excellent work, ‘A List of Brāhmī Inscriptions from the earliest times to about A. D. 400’, published as an Appendix to *Epigraphia Indica*, vol. x, 1910. Mr. F. E. Pargiter's book, entitled *The Purāṇa Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age*, Oxford, 1913, gives the Purāṇic lists in their most authentic form, with a full apparatus of variants. Mr. R. D. Banerji's essay, entitled ‘The Scythian Period of Indian History’, in *Indian Antiquary*, 1908, includes certain valuable hints on the history of Nahapāna, &c., which have helped to guide my judgement. The paper on the ‘Nasik Hoard of Nahapāna's and Satakarni's Coins’, with four plates, by the Rev. H. R. Scott, reprinted from the *J. Br. Br. R. A. S.*, 1907, supplies full details of the important Jogaltembhi hoard.
c26.3
I have also considered Mr. V. Gopala Aiyar's paper, ‘The Saka and Samvat Eras,’ in the *Journal of the South Indian Association*, April 1911, vol. i, pp. 425–49.
c26.4
With reference to those authorities I now proceed to give concisely in this Appendix, in lieu of footnotes, the reasons for the presentation of the history offered in this edition.
c26.5
References to inscriptions apparently mentioning the Āndhra kings named in the Purāṇic list, as indicated by serial numbers, are:—
c26.6
King No. 1—Lüders, No. 1113; No. 2—346, 1144; No. 3—1144, 1345; No. 23—1123, 1124, 1125; No. 24—1100, 1106, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1248; No. 25?—1279; No. 27—987, 1024, 1146, 1340; No. 29—1341. Doubtful identity—1112, 1120, 1202, 1203, 1204. Coins exist attributable, in some cases with doubt, to Nos. 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, in the Āndhra list.
c26.7
The Kshaharāta inscriptions are 1099, 1125, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1174. Coins exist of Bhūmaka and Nahapāna, and certain coins of Gautamīputra (Āndhra king, No. 23), are restruck on those of Nahapāna.
c26.8
The list of Āndhra kings is taken from Pargiter, pp. 38–43, *71*. The Purāṇas give the name of the first king as Śiśuka (*Mt.*), Sindhuka (*Vā*, *Bḍ*), or Śipraka (*Vṣ*), and state that ‘the Āndhra S., with his fellow tribesmen, the servants of Suśarman, will assail the Kāṇvāyanas and him (Suśarman), and destroy the remains of the Śungas’ power and will obtain this earth’. He is identified with Simuka of the Nānāghāṭ inscription, No. 1113, incised in script of about 200 B. C.
c26.9
Kṛishṇa, king No. 2, clearly is Kaṇha of Nānāghāṭ record No. 1144; and king No. 3, Śrī Sātakarṇi or Mallakarṇi, must be the monarch mentioned in Khāravēla's inscription No. 346, and the Nānāghāṭ epigraph, No. 1114.
c26.10
Hardly anything else being known about the first eighteen kings, it will suffice to enumerate their names, with the length of their reigns, as stated in Mr. Pargiter's list. They are (1) Śiśuka, &c., of MSS., Simuka of inscription, 23 years;
c26.11
(2) Krishṇa, his brother, 10; (3) Sātakarṇi or Mallakarṇi, son of (2), 10; (4) Pūrṇotsaṅga, 18; (5) Skandastambhi, 18; (6) Sātakarṇi, 56; (7) Lambodara, 18; (8) Āpīlaka, 12; (9) Meghasvāti, 18; (10) Svāti, 18; (11) Skandasvāti, 7; (12) Mṛigendra Svātikarṇa, 3; (13) Kuntala Svātikarṇa, 8; (14) Svātikarṇa, 1; (15) Pulomāvi [I], 36; (16) Arishṭakarṇa, 25; (17) Hāla, 5; (18) Mantalaka, 5.
c26.12
The remaining twelve kings are exhibited in the annexed synchronistic table.
c26.13
No doubt seems possible as to the identity of Gautamīputra, king No. 23, with *Śrī Sātakarṇi Gautamīputra*, or *Rāja Gautamīputra Sātakarṇi* of the inscriptions, who is known to have reigned at least twenty-four years, and was the father of No. 24, Pulomā[vi II]. That king, No. 24, seems to be the *Rāja Vāśishṭīputra Śrī Pulumāyi*, or *Śrī Pulumāyi Vāº*, or *Navanara-svāmī Vāº Śrī Pulumāyi*, or *Rāja Vāº Svāmī Śrī Pulumāyi*, or [*Rāja*] *Vāº Śrī Sātakarṇi* of various inscriptions.
c26.14
But a difficulty arises as to the identity of three kings who issued coins of the ‘bow and arrow’ type, found, it is believed, only at Kolhāpur, in the Marāthā state of that name in the Western Ghāts. The coin legends, transcribed in Sanskrit form, are:—
c26.15
I. *Rāja Vāśishṭhīputra Vilivāyakura* [I], sometimes restruck with
c26.16
II. *Rāja Māṭharīputra Sivalakura*—sometimes restruck with
c26.17
III. *Rāja Gautamīputra Vilivāyakura* [II]. The restrikings permit of no doubt about the serial order of these kings, but according to one view they were merely local governors and viceroys, and according to another, which I adopted definitely in earlier publications, they were members of the main dynasty. If the latter view be correct, the last named, Vilivāyakura II, must be king No. 23, the Gautamīputra of the Purāṇas. Professor D. R. Bhandarkar, however, rejects the identification of Vilivāyakura II with Gautamīputra, and regards him as belonging to a different line, which ruled separately in the country round Kolhāpur. According to the same authority, he or one of his predecessors was a contemporary of Pulumāyi II (*Ind. Ant.*, vol. xlix (1920), pp. 30–4). Another question is whether the strange word Vilivāyakura, which is probably either Telugu or Kanarese, should be regarded as a title or a proper name. In the previous edition of this work, the author inclined to the view that Vilivāyakura must be regarded as a name. The point is discussed by D. R. Bhandarkar in ‘Dekkan of the Sātavāhana Period’ (*Ind. Ant.* xlix (1920), pp. 31–4), and in my opinion still awaits a final solution.
c26.18
Pulumāyi II, king No. 24, takes the name or title Sātakarṇi in the Kaṇheri inscription No. 11=Lüders 994, and appears to have married the daughter of the Great Satrap Rudradāman I, who twice defeated him before a. d. 130. Pulumāyi, as stated in the Purāṇas, was the son of Gautamīputra. It seems to me quite clear that this Pulumāyi II was the king defeated by Rudradāman I. If that view is correct, though it is not absolutely free from doubt, a firm chronological datum is obtained from which the dates of the dynasty can be reckoned approximately both backwards and forwards.
c26.19
The identification of king No. 27 with the Yajña Śrī of numerous coins and inscriptions is obvious and certain.
c26.20
Archaeologists have got into a bad habit of mixing up as ‘Western Satraps’ two distinct dynasties—namely, the Kshaharātas of Mahārāshṭra and the line of Chashṭana originally settled at Ujjain in Mālwā. No doubt both dynasties were satraps in the west, but they were entirely distinct, and it is better not to apply a common designation to both. Probably the capital of Nahapāna Kshaharāta was at or near Nāsik in the Western Ghāts; the original capital of Chashṭana certainly was Ujjain. Chashṭana’s grandson Rudradāman annexed from Pulumāyi II Āndhra most of the territories which Pulumāyi’s father had wrested from the Kshaharātas some years earlier. It is not necessary to believe that Gautamīputra Āndhra fought with Nahapāna personally. Study of the great Jogaltembhi hoard of more than 13,000 coins of Nahapāna proves that the coinage extended over many years, although always bearing the name of Nahapāna, who, I believe, was dead before Gautamīputra extirpated his family or clan. The arrow and thunderbolt of Nahapāna’s coins connect him with the Parthians and the Northern Satraps Hagāna and Hagāmāsha.¹ The coinage of Chashṭana and his successors is quite different.
c26.21
¹ *Catal. Coins in I. M.*, vol. i, p. 195. In that work Hagāna and Hagāmāsha seem to be dated too early.
c26.22
The Greek geographer Ptolemy, who died after A. D. 161, and lived at Alexandria for forty years, described Ujjain as the capital of Tiastanēs, who, no doubt, is rightly identified with Chashṭana. The date of composition of the *Geography* is not known, but if the book was written about A. D. 130 the information about Tiastanēs was not many years out of date.²
c26.23
² Baleokouros, mentioned by Ptolemy as ruling at Hippokoura, probably was the Āndhra king No. 23, who acquired the Kshaharāta dominions about A. D. 126. Hippokoura may mean Nāsik.
c26.24
My view of the relations between the Āndhras and the two distinct dynasties of foreign satraps is concisely exhibited in the following tabular statement. It seems to me that all the data harmonize admirably. Almost all students are agreed that the inscriptions and coins of the Chashṭana line of satraps are dated in the Śaka era, and it is possible that the Kshaharāta records are dated in the same way.³
c26.25
³ This is denied by R. D. Banerji (*J. R. A. S.*, 1917, pp. 272–89), who takes the dates of the Kshaharāta inscriptions to refer to a different era, probably the regnal years of Nahapāna. The Parthian relations of his coinage indicate an early date.
The Later Āndhra Kings and Connected Dynasties
c26.s1.1.1
| Āndhra Kings, Purāṇa List, Pargiter, pp. 35–43, 71. | Acc. c. A. D. | Inscriptions, Lüders’s List, *Ep. Ind.*, vol. x, App. | Coins. | Kshaharāta Satraps of Mahārāshṭra. | Acc. c. A. D. | Śaka Satraps and Great Satraps of Ujjain. | Acc. c. A. D. | Remarks. | | YRS. 19. Purikasena . . 21 20. Sundara Śātakarṇi 1 21. Chakora Śātakarṇi ½ 22. Śivasvāti . . . 28 | 59 80 81 81 | ? No. 1279, Amarāvatī, *Rāja Śrī Śivamaka Sata*; but it might belong to No. 25 or 26 below. | The ‘bow and arrow’ coins of Vāśishṭhīputra Vilivāyakura [I] may belong to any one of these three kings (see Rapson, pp. 5, 6), but possibly belong to a different line (see *Ind. Ant.*, vol. xlix, 1920, pp. 30–4). The ‘bow and arrow’ coins of Māṭharīputra *Sivalakura* have been assigned to this king (Rapson, p. 7). See also No. 25. They may be the coins of a separate line. | Bhūmaka, Satrap (coins only; no inscriptions or dates). Bhūmaka’s relation to Nahapāna is not known. Nahapāna, Satrap. | ? 1–10 or B. C. ? A.D. 40 or earlier? | Chashṭana (son of Ghsamōtika), at first Satrap, later Great Satrap; also took Indian title of *Rāja*. | 80 | (*N.B. Names given in Sanskrit form for the sake of uniformity of spelling.*) ‘Tiastanes’ of Ptolemy = Chashṭana. |
c26.s1.1.2
| 23. Gautamīputra . 21 | 102 | Nos. 1123, 1125, 1126, Nāsik; to the 24th year. | Re-struck coins of Nahapāna with the legend *Rāja Gautamīputra Śrī Śātakarṇi* (Rapson, pp. lxxxix, 68–70). | Dakshamitrā, dau., m. to Rishabhadatta or Ushavadāta, governor of Nāsik, &c. Nahapāna may have died about A.D. 80. His dynasty was extirpated by Āndhra king No. 23, shortly before year 18 of that king, i.e. about A.D. 119. The Kshaharāta inscriptions are dated from 41 to 46 [Śaka], = A.D. 119–124; but Banerji takes these to represent a different era, perhaps the regnal years of Nahapāna. | | Jayadāman, son of Chashṭana, Satrap only. | 110 | Āndhra king No. 23, has been considered as = Baleokouros of Ptolemy. But the latter may be a different king, contemporary of Gautamīputra (23) and Pulumāvi (24). Intelligible Greek legends occur on the coins of Nahapāna. | | 24. Pulomā[vi II], son of 23 . . . . 28 | 123 | Nos. 994, Kaṇhēri; 1122–4, 1147, Nāsik; 1100, 1106, Kārtē, and prob. 1248, Amarāvatī. *Rāja Vāśishṭhīputra Śrī Pulumāyi*; *svāmī* sometimes inserted before *Śrī*. *Vā·Śrī Śātakarṇi* in No. 994. | Eastern coins of *Rāja Vāśishṭhīputra Śrī Pulumāyi* (Rapson, p. 20). | | | Rudradāman [I], son of Jayadāman, Great Satrap (known dates A.D. 130 and 150; twice defeated Āndhra king No. 24, before A.D. 130). | 128 | | | [24a. In *e* Vāyu only, Sātakarṇi 29 | —] | | | | | Dāmajadaśrī, Satrap and Great Satrap (no known dates), son of Rudradāman I. | 155 | |
c26.s1.1.3
| 25. Śivaśrī Puloma[vi III] 7 | 156 | See Nos. 22, 26. | Prob. the eastern coins of *Rāja Vāśishṭhīputra Śiva Śrī Śātakarṇi*. But see Nos. 22 and 26. | | | | | | | 26. Śiva Skandha Śātakarṇi ? 3 | 163 | ? No. 1186, Banavāsi, mentioning prince *Śāta-* or *Śiva-Skandanāga Śrī*. See Nos. 22 and 25. | See Nos. 22 and 25 above. | | | | | | | 27. Yajñaśrī Śātakarṇika 29 | 166 | Nos. 987, 1024, Kaṇhēri, and 1146, Nāsik, *Rāja Gautamīputra Svānī Śrī Yajña Śātakarṇi*. No. 1340, China in Krishnā Dist., substituted *aryaka* for *svāmī*. To year 27. | Numerous types, with legend *Rāja Gautamīputra Śrī Yajña Śātakarṇi*, or parts of that legend (Rapson, pp. 34–45). | | | Jīvadāman, Great Satrap, son of Dāmajadaśrī. | 178 | Sundry complications in the succession of the Satraps and Great Satraps are omitted. | | 28. Vijaya . . . 6 | 195 | | | | | Rudrasiṁha I, son of Rudradāman I, Satrap and Great Satrap. | 180 | | | 29. Chaṇḍaśrī (Chandra) Śātakarṇi 10 | 201 | No. 1341, Kodavolu in Godāvari Dist. *Rāja Vāśishṭhīputra Svāmī Śrī Chaṇḍa (Chandra) Śāta*. | Apparently eastern coins of *Rāja Vāśishṭhīputra Śrī Chandra Sāti*, or simply *Śrī Chandra Sāti* (Rapson, pp. 30, 33). | | | Rudrasena I, son of Rudrasiṁha I, Satrap and Great Satrap. | 199 | | | 30. Pulomāvi [IV] . 7 | 211 | Probably *nil*. | ? *nil*, but the attribution of some of the Pulomāvi coins is doubtful. | | | Sanghadāman, another son of Rudrasiṁha I, Great Satrap. | 222 | |
c26.s1.1.4
| End of Dynasty. ‘These 30 Āndhra kings will enjoy the earth 460 years’ (v. l. *Bḍ*, 456; *Vā*, 411; but ? corrupt). | 225 | | Other coins exist which cannot be attributed definitely to any king in the list. | | | Dāmasena, another son of Rudrasiṁha I, Great Satrap. | 223 | |
c26.s1.3
CHAPTER IX
c26.s1.4
THE INDO-GREEK AND INDO-PARTHIAN DYNASTIES, FROM ABOUT 250 B. C. TO ABOUT A. D. 60
c26.s1.5
The story of the native dynasties in the interior must now be interrupted to admit a brief review of the fortunes of the various foreign rulers who established themselves in the Indian territories once conquered by Alexander, after the sun of the Maurya empire had set, and the north-western frontier was left exposed to foreign attack. The daring and destructive raid of the great Macedonian, as we have seen, had effected none of the permanent results intended. The Indian provinces which he had subjugated, and which Seleukos had failed to recover, passed into the iron grip of Chandragupta, who transmitted them to the keeping of his son and grandson. I see no reason to doubt that the territories west of the Indus ceded by Seleukos to his Indian opponent continued in possession of the successors of the latter, and that consequently the Hindū Kush range was the frontier of the Maurya empire up to the close of Asoka's reign.
c26.s1.6
But it is certain that the unity of the empire did not survive Asoka, and that when the influence of his dominating personality ceased to act, the outlying provinces shook off their allegiance and set up as independent states; of some of which the history has been told in the last preceding chapter. The regions of the north-western frontier, when no longer protected by the arm of a strong paramount native power in the interior, offered a tempting field to the ambition of the Hellenistic princes of Bactria and Parthia, as well as to the cupidity of the warlike races on the border, which was freely exploited by a succession of invaders. This chapter will be devoted, so far as the very imperfect materials available permit, to a sketch of the leading events in the annals of the Panjāb and trans-Indus provinces from the close of Asoka’s reign to the establishment of the Indo-Scythian, or Kushān, power. Dates, it will be understood, are uncertain.
c26.s1.7
The spacious Asiatic dominion consolidated by the genius of Seleukos Nikator passed in the year 262 or 261 B. C. into the hands of his grandson Antiochos, a drunken sensualist, miscalled even in his lifetime Theos, or ‘the god’, and, strange to say, worshipped as such.¹ This worthless prince occupied the throne for fifteen or sixteen years; but towards the close of his reign his empire suffered two grievous losses, by the revolt of the Bactrians, under the leadership of Diodotos, and of the Parthians, under that of Arsakes.
c26.s1.8
¹ Antiochos Soter died between July 262 and July 261, at the age of sixty-four; and was succeeded by his son Antiochos Theos, then aged about twenty-four years, who put his brother Seleukos to death (Bevan, *House of Seleucus*, i, 168, 171, citing Eusebius, i, 249). The inscription found at Durdurkar proves that the second Antiochos was worshipped as a god during his life, and that priestesses were also appointed to conduct the worship of his queen Laodikē.
c26.s1.9
The loss of Bactria was especially grievous. This province, the rich plain watered by the Oxus (Amū Daryā) after its issue from the mountains, had been occupied by civilized men from time immemorial. The country, which was said to contain a thousand towns,² always had been regarded, during the time of the Achaemenian kings, as the premier satrapy, and reserved as an appanage for a prince of the blood. When Alexander shattered the Persian power and seated himself upon the throne of the Great King, he continued to bestow his royal favour upon the Bactrians, who in return readily assimilated the elements of Hellenic civilization. Two years after his death, at the final partition of the empire in 321 B. C., Bactria fell to the share of Seleukos Nikator, and continued to be one of the most valuable possessions of his son and grandson.
c26.s1.10
² ‘Eukratides had a thousand cities which acknowledged his authority’ (Strabo, Bk. xv, sec. ii, 3). ‘Bactriana is the ornament of all Ariana’ (ibid., Bk. xi, sec. xi, 1).
c26.s1.11
The Parthians, a race of rude and hardy horsemen, with habits similar to those of the modern Turkomans, dwelt beyond the Persian deserts in the comparatively infertile regions to the south-east of the Caspian Sea. Their country, along with the territories of the Chorasmioi, Sogdioi, and Arioi (Khwārizm, Samarkand, and Herāt), had been included in the sixteenth satrapy of Darius; and all the tribes named, armed like the Bactrians, with cane bows and short spears, supplied contingents to the host of Xerxes.¹ In the time of Alexander and the early Seleukidae, Parthia proper and Hyrkania, adjoining the Caspian, were combined to form a satrapy. The Parthians, unlike the Bactrians, had never adopted Greek culture; and, although submissive to their Persian and Macedonian masters, retained unchanged the habits of a horde of mounted shepherds, equally skilled in the management of their steeds and the use of the bow.²
c26.s1.12
¹ Herod. iii, 93, 117; vii, 64–6.
c26.s1.13
² For a full account of Parthia see Canon Rawlinson's *Sixth Oriental Monarchy*, or his more popular work, *The Story of Parthia* in the *Story of the Nations* series.
c26.s1.14
These two nations, so widely different in history and manners—the Bactrians, with a thousand cities, and the Parthians, with myriads of moss-troopers—were moved at almost the same moment, about the middle of the third century B. C., to throw off their allegiance to their Seleukidan lord, and assert their independence. The exact dates of these rebellions cannot be determined, but the Bactrian revolt seems to have been the earlier; and there is reason to believe that the Parthian struggle continued for several years, not being ended until after the death of Antiochos Theos in 246 B. C., although the declaration of Parthian autonomy seems to have been made in 248 B. C.³
c26.s1.15
³ The leading ancient authority is Justin, Bk. xli, ch. 4; but the consuls whom he specifies to fix the date of the Parthian revolt are not correctly named. He calls the Bactrian leader Theodotus, and says that he revolted 'at the same period'. The details of the evidence for the dates of the two rebellions have been examined repeatedly by Cunningham, Rawlinson, Bevan, and other writers, with the result stated in the text. The date 248 is supposed by Prof. Terrien de Lacouperie to mark the beginning of the Arsakidan era. He agrees with Mr. Bevan in believing that the struggle for Parthian independence lasted for several years (*Sur deux ères inconnues*, reprint, p. 5). Mr. Bevan thinks that Justin intended to indicate the year 250–249 B. C. as that of the Parthian revolt (*House of Seleucus*, i, 286). Sir H. Howorth prefers the date 248–7 B. C. (*Num. Chron.*, 1905, p. 222).
c26.s1.16
The Bactrian revolt was a rebellion of the ordinary Oriental type, headed by Diodotos, the governor of the province, who seized an opportunity to shake off the authority of his sovereign and assume the royal state. The Parthian movement was rather a national rising, led by a chief named Arsakes, who is described as being a man of uncertain origin but undoubted bravery, and inured to a life of rapine. Arsakes declared his independence, and so founded the famous Arsakidan dynasty of Persia, which endured for nearly five centuries (248 B. C. to A. D. 226). The success of both the Bactrian and Parthian rebels was facilitated by the war of succession which disturbed the Seleukidan monarchy after the death of Antiochos Theos.
c26.s1.17
The line of Bactrian kings initiated by Diodotos was destined to a briefer and stormier existence than that enjoyed by the dynasty of the Arsakidae. Diodotos himself wore his newly won crown for a brief space only, and after a few years was succeeded (*c.* 245 B. C.) by his son of the same name, who entered into an alliance with the Parthian king.¹
c26.s1.18
¹ 'Arsaces . . . made himself master of Hyrcania, and thus, invested with authority over two nations, raised a large army, through fear of Seleucos and Theodotus, king of the Bactrians. But being soon relieved of his fears by the death of Theodotus, he made peace and alliance with his son; who was also named Theodotus; and not long after, engaging with king Seleucus [Kallinikos], who came to take vengeance on the revolters, he obtained a victory; and the Parthians observe the day on which it was gained with great solemnity, as the date of the commencement of their liberty' (Justin, Bk. xli, ch. 4). This explicit testimony outweighs the doubts expressed by numismatists concerning the existence of the second Diodotos. All the extant coins seem to belong to Diodotos II; his father probably did not issue coins in his own name. Sir H. Howorth, who thinks very little of Justin's authority, denies his statement that Arsakes killed Andragoras, the Seleukidan viceroy (*Num. Chron.*, 1905, pp. 217, 222).
c26.s1.19
Diodotos II was followed (*c.* 230 B. C.) by Euthydēmos, a native of Magnesia, who seems to have belonged to a different family, and to have gained the crown by successful rebellion. This monarch became involved in a long-contested war with Antiochos the Great of Syria (223–187 B. C.), which was terminated (*c.* 208 B. C.) by a treaty recognizing the independence of the Bactrian kingdom. Shortly after-
c26.s1.20
wards (*c.* 206 B. C.) Antiochos crossed the Hindū Kush, and compelled an Indian king named Subhāgasena, who probably ruled in the Kābul valley, to surrender a considerable number of elephants and large treasure. Leaving Androsthenes of Cyzicus to collect this war indemnity, Antiochos in person led his main force homeward through Arachosia and Drangiana to Karmania.¹
c26.s1.21
¹ Polybius, xi, 34. The name of the Indian king is given as Sophagasenas by the historian, which seems to represent the Sanskrit *Subhāgasena*.
c26.s1.22
Demetrios, son of Euthydēmos, and son-in-law of Antiochos, who had given him a daughter in marriage when the independence of Bactria was recognized, repeated his father-in-law's exploits with still greater success, and conquered a considerable portion of Northern India, presumably including Kābul, the Panjāb, and Sind (*c.* 190 B. C.).²
c26.s1.23
² 'The Greeks who occasioned its [Bactria's] revolt, became so powerful by means of its fertility and [the] advantages of the country, that they became masters of Ariana and India, according to Apollodoros of Artemita. Their chiefs, particularly Menander (if he really crossed the Hypanis to the east and reached Isamus), conquered more nations than Alexander. These conquests were achieved partly by Menander, partly by Demetrios, son of Euthydēmos, king of the Bactrians. They got possession not only of Patalene but of the kingdoms of Saraostos and Sigerdis, which constitute the remainder of the coast. Apollodoros, in short, says that Bactriana is the ornament of all Ariana. They extended their empire even as far as the Seres and Phrynoi' (Strabo, Bk. xi, sec. xi, 1, in Falconer's version). The last clause may point to a temporary Greek occupation of the mountains as far to the east as the λίθινος πύργος of Ptolemy, the exact position of which cannot be determined at present (Stein, *Ancient Khotan*, p. 54, cancelling statement in *Sand-buried Ruins of Khotan*, p. 72). As regards Seres, see *J. A. O. S.*, vol. xxxvii, p. 240, for the identification of Sera metropolis with the old Chinese capital Singan-fu.
c26.s1.24
The distant Indian wars of Demetrios necessarily weakened his hold upon Bactria, and afforded the opportunity for successful rebellion to one Eukratides, who made himself master of Bactria about 175 B. C., and became involved in many wars with the surrounding states and tribes, which he carried on with varying fortune and unvarying spirit. Demetrios, although he had lost Bactria, long retained his hold upon his eastern conquests, and was known as 'King of the Indians'; but after a severe struggle the victory rested with Eukratides, who was an opponent not easily beaten and is credited with having 'reduced India under his power'. It is related that on one occasion, when shut up for five months in a fort with a garrison of only three hundred men, he succeeded in repelling the attack of a host of sixty thousand under the command of Demetrios.¹
c26.s1.25
¹ Justin, xli, 6.
c26.s1.26
But the hard-won triumph was short-lived. While Eukratides was on his homeward march from India attended by his son, probably Apollodotos, whom he had made his colleague in power, he was barbarously murdered by the unnatural youth, who is said to have gloried in his monstrous crime, driving his chariot wheels through the blood of his father, to whose corpse he refused even the poor honour of burial.²
c26.s1.27
² Ibid. All the leading numismatic authorities agree that Heliokles was a son of Eukratides. Cunningham (*Num. Chron.*, 1869, pp. 241–3) shows good reasons for believing that the parricide was Apollodotos, the eldest son of the murdered king. But (*contra*) the Kapiśa coins of Eukratides are sometimes restruck on those of Apollodotos (Rapson, *J. R. A. S.*, 1905, p. 784).
c26.s1.28
The murder of Eukratides shattered to fragments the kingdom for which he had fought so valiantly. Another son, named Heliokles, who assumed the title of 'the Just', perhaps as the avenger of his father's cruel death, enjoyed for a brief space a precarious tenure of power in Bactria. Strato I, who also seems to have belonged to the family of Eukratides, held a principality in the Panjāb for many years, and was perhaps the immediate successor of Apollodotos. Agathokles and Pantaleon (*c.* 190–180 B. C.), whose coins are specially Indian in character, were earlier in date, and contemporary with Euthydēmos and Demetrios. It is evident from the great variety of the royal names in the coin-legends, nearly forty in number, that both before and after the death of Eukratides, the Indian borderland was parcelled out among a crowd of Greek princelings, for the most part related either to the family of Euthydēmos and Demetrios or to that of their rival Eukratides. Some of these princelings, among whom was Antialkidas (*c.* 140–130 B. C.),³ were subdued by Eukratides, who, if he had lived, might have consolidated a great border kingdom. But his death in the hour of victory increased the existing confusion, and it is quite impossible to make a satisfactory territorial and chronological arrangement of the Indo-Greek frontier kings contemporary with and posterior to Eukratides. Their names, which, with two exceptions, are known from coins only, will be found included in the list appended to this chapter (Appendix J).
c26.s1.29
³ Antialkidas is mentioned in an inscription, which may be dated between 140 and 130 B. C., found at Besnagar near Bhilsā in Central India. The inscription was incised by direction of one Heliodorus of Taxila who was sent as an envoy to the ruler of Besnagar by Antialkidas, who ruled at Taxila. The inscription is valuable as fixing an early date for the *bhakti* cult of Vāsudeva, and as proving that people with Greek names and in the service of Greek kings had adopted the cult of Hindu gods (*Prog. Rep. A. S. W. Circle*, 1914–15, p. 59; *Ann. Rep. A. S. I.*, 1908–9 and 1913–14).
c26.s1.30
One name, that of Menander, stands out conspicuously among the crowd of obscure princes. He seems to have belonged to the family of Eukratides, and to have had his capital at Kābul, whence he issued, in or about 155 B. C., to make the bold invasion of India described in the last chapter. About two years later he was obliged to retire and devote his energies to the encounter with dangers which menaced him at home, due to the never-ending quarrels with his neighbours on the frontier.
c26.s1.31
Menander was celebrated as a just ruler, and when he died was honoured with magnificent obsequies. He is supposed to have been a convert to Buddhism, and has been immortalized under the name of Milinda in a celebrated dialogue, entitled 'The Questions of Milinda', which is one of the most notable books in Buddhist literature.¹
c26.s1.32
¹ The obsequies are described by Plutarch (*Reipubl. ger. praecepta*, quoted textually in *Num. Chron.*, 1869, p. 229). The 'Questions' have been translated by Rhys Davids in *S. B. E.*, vols. xxxv, xxxvi. For identification of Milinda with Menander, doubted by Waddell, see Garbe, *Beiträge zur indischen Kulturgeschichte*, Berlin, 1903, p. 109, note; Tarn, 'Notes on Hellenism in Bactria and India' (*J. Hell. Soc.*, 1902, p. 272); and Sarat Chandra Dās in *J. Buddhist Text and Research Soc.*, vol. vii (1904), pp. 1–6. The form *Milindra* occurs in Kshemendra's *Avadāna Kalpalata* and in the Tibetan Tangyur collection.
c26.s1.33
Heliokles, the son of Eukratides, who had obtained Bactria as his share of his father's extensive dominion, was the last king of Greek race to rule the territories to the north of the Hindū Kush. While the Greek princes and princelings were struggling one with the other in obscure wars which history has not condescended to record, a deluge was preparing in the steppes of Central Asia, which was destined to sweep them all away into nothingness.
c26.s1.34
A horde of nomads, named the Yüe-chi, whose movements will be more particularly described in the next chapter, were driven out of North-western China about 170 B. C., and compelled to migrate westwards by the route to the north of the deserts.¹ Some years later, before 160 B. C., they encountered another horde, the Sakas or Se, who occupied the territories lying to the north of the Jaxartes (Syr Daryā) river, as already mentioned.²
c26.s1.35
¹ 165 B. C. is the date commonly given by Chinese scholars. Franke dates the defeat of the Yüe-chi *about* 170 B. C. The southward migration of the Sakas, according to him, must be placed between 174 and 160, but nearer the latter date (*Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Türkvölker*, pp. 29, 55).
c26.s1.36
² *Ante*, p. 239.
c26.s1.37
The Sakas, accompanied by cognate tribes, were forced to move in a southerly direction, and in course of time entered India from the north, possibly by more roads than one. The flood of barbarian invasion spread also to the west, and burst upon the Parthian kingdom and Bactria in the period between 140 and 120 B. C. The Parthian king, Phraates II, the immediate successor of Mithradates I, was killed in battle with the nomads about 127 B. C.; and some four years later, Artabanus I, who followed him on the Parthian throne, met the same fate. The Hellenistic monarchy, which must have been weakened already by the growth of the Parthian or Persian power, was then finally extinguished. The last Graeco-Bactrian king was Heliokles, with whom Greek rule to the north of the Hindū Kush disappeared for ever.³
c26.s1.38
³ Μάλιστα δὲ γνώριμοι γεγόνασι τῶν νομάδων οἱ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀφελόμενοι τὴν Βακτριανήν, Ἄσιοι, καὶ Πασιανοί, καὶ Τόχαροι, καὶ Σακάραυλοι, καὶ ὁρμηθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς περαίας τοῦ Ἰαξάρτου, τῆς κατὰ Σάκας καὶ Σογδιανοὺς ἣν κατεῖχον Σάκαι (Strabo, xi, 8, 2). The attempts of various writers to identify the Asioi and other tribes named are unsuccessful.
c26.s1.39
The valley of the Hilmand (Erymandrus) river, the modern Sīstān, known as Sakastēnē, or the Saka country, probably had been occupied by Sakas at an earlier date, but it is possible that part of the influx in the second century B. C. may have reached that province.⁴
c26.s1.40
⁴ According to Sir H. McMahon 'the Scythians (Sakae) were turned out about 275 a. d.' (*Geogr. J.*, 1906, p. 209).
c26.s1.41
Branches of the barbarian stream which penetrated the Indian passes deposited settlements at Taxila in the Panjāb and Mathurā on the Jumna, where foreign princes, with the title of satrap, ruled for more than a century, seemingly in subordination to the Parthian power.
c26.s1.42
Yet another section of the horde, at a later date, perhaps about the middle of the first century after Christ, pushed on southwards and occupied the peninsula of Surāshtra or Kāthiāwār, founding a Saka dynasty which lasted until it was destroyed by Chandragupta II, Vikramāditya, about a. d. 390.
c26.s1.43
Strato I, Sotēr, a Greek king of Kābul and the Panjāb, who was to some extent contemporary with Heliokles, was succeeded by Strato II, Philopator, his grandson; who again, apparently, was displaced at Taxila by certain foreign satraps, who may or may not have been Sakas. The satraps of Mathurā were closely connected with those of Taxila, and belong to the same period, about 50 b. c. or later.¹ Their names seem to be Persian.
c26.s1.44
¹ The first known satrap of Taxila was Liaka, whose son was Patika. In the year 78 Liaka was directly subordinate to king Moga, who is generally supposed to be Maues or Mauas of the coins. Śodāsa, satrap of Mathurā in the year 72, was the son of satrap Rājuvula, whose later coins imitate those of Strato II. The era or eras to which those dates refer have not been determined. S. Konow holds that Śodāsa's inscription is dated in the Vikrama era (*Ep. Ind.*, xiv, 139). Rājuvula succeeded the satraps Hagāna and Hagāmāsha (? brothers), who displaced native Rājas named Gomitra, Rāmadatta, &c., of whom coins are extant. The coinage of the two Stratos, which covers a period of about seventy years, has been elucidated by Prof. Rapson (*Corolla Numismatica*, p. 245; Oxford, 1906). Vogel suggests that Rājuvula and his son may have been satraps subordinate to Huvishka, whose accession I place in a. d. 123 (*A. S. Prog. Rep.*, 1909–10, *N. Circle*, p. 9). If that be correct, the date 72 would be in the Saka era = a. d. 150. But there are difficulties.
c26.s1.45
The movements of the Sakas and allied nomad tribes were closely connected with the development of the Parthian or Persian power under the Arsakidan kings. Mithradates I, a very able monarch (*c.* 171 to 136 b. c.), who was for many years the contemporary of Eukratides, king of Bactria, succeeded in extending his dominions so widely that his power was felt as far as the Indus, and probably even to the east of that river. I see no good reason for doubting the truth of the explicit statement of Orosius that, subsequent to the defeat of the general of Demetrios and the occupation of Babylon, Mithradates I annexed to his dominions the territory of all the nations between the Indus and the Hydaspes, or Jihlam river. The chiefs of Taxila and Mathurā would not have assumed the purely Persian title of satrap, if they had not regarded themselves as subordinates of the Persian or Parthian sovereign; and the close relations between the Parthian monarchy and the Indian borderland at this period are demonstrated by the appearance of a long line of princes of Parthian origin, who now enter on the scene.¹
c26.s1.46
¹ The exact limits of the reign of Mithradates I are not known. Justin (xli, 6) states that 'almost at the same time that Mithradates ascended the throne among the Parthians, Eukratides began to reign among the Bactrians; both of them being great men'. The text of the passage in Orosius is: ‘Mithradates, tunc siquidem, rex Parthorum sextus ab Arsace, victo Demetrii praefecto Babylonam urbem finesque eius universos victor invasit. Omnes praeterea gentes quae inter Hydaspen fluvium et Indum iacent subegit’ (Bk. v, ch. iv, sec. 16; ed. Zangemeister, Vienna, 1883). The event may be dated about 138 B. C., towards the close of the reign of Mithradates. Nachfolger, p. 140. Von Gutschmid compares the name Maues or Mauas with that of Mauakēs (v. l. Mabakēs), who commanded the Śaka contingent of mounted archers in the army of Darius at Gaugamela or Arbela (Arrian. *Anab.*, iii, 8). The chronology is discussed in *J. R. A. S.*, 1903, p. 46, and in *Z. D. M. G.*, 1906, pp. 49–72. In the light of his discoveries at Taxila, Marshall varies the chronology hitherto accepted, discussing the subject in *Ann. Rep. A. S. India for 1912–13* and very fully in *J. P. H. S.*, vol. iii. In this edition I have followed his view, particularly in regard to the date of Kanishka, which agrees with that of Sten Konow (‘Indoskythische Beiträge’ in *Sitzungs-*
c26.s1.47
The earliest of these Indo-Parthian kings apparently was Maues or Mauas, who attained power in the Western Panjāb perhaps about 95 B. C., and adopted the title of 'Great King of Kings' (βασιλέως βασιλέων μεγάλου), which had been used for the first time by either Mithradates I or Mithradates II. His coins are closely related to those of both those monarchs, as well as to those of the unmistakably Parthian border chief, who called himself Arsakes Theos. The king Moga, to whom the Taxilian satrap was immediately subordinate, is usually identified with the personage whose name appears on the coins as *Mauou* in the genitive case.²
c26.s1.48
² For *Mauou* see Von Sallet, *ber. d. königl. preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften*, 1916). For the Indo-Parthian coins see *Catal. Coins I. M.*, vol. i, pp. 35-62.
c26.s1.49
The story of the Indo-Parthian dynasties really being that of certain outlying dependencies of the Parthian empire, we should be in a position to understand fully the relations of the Indo-Parthian rulers to the world of their day, if our knowledge of Parthian history were more complete than it is or is likely to be. The material actually available for the reconstruction in outline of Indo-Parthian history is so slight, consisting largely of inferences from numismatic details, that it is impossible to present an ordered narrative of indisputable facts, and the results of investigation necessarily must be in great part speculative. Subject to these cautions, the following sketch expresses my views of the facts—whether ascertained or merely probable—as obtained from special study of the question. The reader will understand that the dates suggested are open to correction.
c26.s1.50
Much obscurity has been caused by the failure of writers on the subject to recognize the plain truth that, besides some subordinate satraps, there were two main lines of Indo-Parthian princes, one of which ruled in Arachosia and Sīstān, while the other governed the Western Panjāb, or kingdom of Taxila. Maues, as has been seen, became king, perhaps, about 95 B. C., of the latter province, which, in or about 138 B. C., had been annexed to Parthia by Mithradates I. It is probable that the direct administration of the newly conquered province by the government of Ctesiphon lasted only for a few years. The struggle with the nomads, which cost Phraates II and Artabanus their lives, between 130 and 120 B. C., must have caused a relaxation in the grip of the central power on remote dependencies like the Indian borderlands; and it is highly probable that Maues, who may have been a Saka, availed himself of the opportunity thus offered to establish himself upon the Panjāb throne in the enjoyment of practical, if not theoretical, independence.
c26.s1.51
About the same time, or a few years later, Vonōnēs, a Parthian, became king of Arachosia and Sīstān, no doubt as a feudatory of the Great King at Ctesiphon. Those territories were administered by him and his relatives for a brief period—some twenty-five years—the last of his line being his nephew Azes, who occupied the position of viceroy or subordinate colleague of his father Spalirises, brother of Vonōnēs.
c26.s1.52
The Parthian power, which had suffered severely from the shock of the nomad attacks, recovered under the vigorous government of Mithradates II, the Great (acc. *c.* 123 B. C.). Apparently, that strong ruler took over the direct government of the provinces which had been administered by Vonōnēs and his family, and also reasserted his suzerainty over the less accessible Panjāb. Azes, the viceroy of Arachosia and Sīstān, was then transferred to Taxila, where he succeeded Maues about 58 B. C., and governed the province as a subordinate king under Mithradates. Azes I was succeeded on the throne of the Panjāb, first by his son Azilises and then by his grandson Azes II. Azes I certainly was a powerful prince, and enjoyed a long reign, extending to nearly forty years. It is known that at the beginning of the Christian era no part of India was included in the Parthian empire, and it is not unlikely that during the course of his long reign Azes I succeeded in establishing his independence. The reigns of Azilises and Azes II seem to have occupied together about forty years. In the time of the latter, the *stratēgos*, or satrap, Aspavarma, and the satrap Zeiōnises assisted their sovereign in the administration of the Panjāb.
c26.s1.53
About A. D. 20 Azes II is supposed to have been succeeded by Gondopharēs, who seems to have conquered Sind and Arachosia, making himself master of a wide dominion free from Parthian control. When he died, about A. D. 48, his kingdom was divided, the Western Panjāb falling to the share of his brother’s son Abdagases, while Arachosia and Sind passed under the rule of Orthagnes, who was followed by Pakorēs. No successor of Abdagases is known. About the middle of the first century the Panjāb was annexed by the Kushān king, Kujula-Kara-Kadphises (Kadphises I).
c26.s1.54
Arachosia and Sind probably shared the fate of the Panjāb.¹
c26.s1.55
¹ According to Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana twice visited Bardanes or Vardanes, king of Parthia, who reigned from *c.* A. D. 39 to 47, and resided at Babylon. Prof. Petrie seems to be right in holding that the travels of Apollonius in India should be dated in A. D. 43–44. At that time Philostratus represents the Western Panjāb as being under the government of King Phraōtes, evidently a Parthian. The Satrap on the eastern side of the Indus was subordinate to Phraōtes of Taxila and independent of Bardanes (*Apollonius*, Bk. I, ch. 28; Bk. II, ch. 17; Bk. III, ch. 58. For Phraōtes, see Bk. II, ch. 26–31). Although the details of the Indian travels are fictitious, Philostratus seems to have been right in placing the kingdom of Taxila under an independent Parthian ruler at or about the date named.
c26.s1.56
But petty Parthian principalities may have continued to exist for some time longer in the delta of the Indus. The author of the *Periplus of the Erythraean Sea*, writing about A. D. 70, found the valley of the Lower Indus, which he called Scythia, under the rule of Parthian chiefs, engaged in unceasing internecine strife. The Indus at that time had seven mouths, of which only the central one was navigable. The commercial port, known to the traveller as Barbarikon, was situated upon this stream; and the capital, Minnagar, lay inland. The extensive changes which have occurred in the rivers of Sind during the course of eighteen centuries preclude the possibility of satisfactory identifications of either of these towns.²
c26.s1.57
² *Periplus*, ch. 38. The work used to be ascribed erroneously to Arrian. It has been translated with notes by McCrindle (*Ind. Ant.*, viii, 1879, pp. 108–51), and by W. H. Schoff, 1912. The date A. D. 246 or 247 for the final redaction of the work proposed by Reinaud, is impossible. McCrindle dates it between A. D. 80 and 89. Mr. Schoff (p. 15) suggests A. D. 60, but in a subsequent letter to me he expresses his preference for A. D. 80. The best authenticated date is A. D. 70 or 71 (Kennedy in *J. R. A. S.*, 1918, p. 112). The 'Indus' should be understood to mean the Mihrān of Sind, including the Indus proper, as explained by Raverty. McCrindle's version was also published separately (Calcutta and London, 1879).
c26.s1.58
Special interest attaches to the Indo-Parthian king Gondopharēs because his name is associated in very ancient Christian tradition with that of St. Thomas, the apostle of the Parthians. The belief that the Parthians were allotted as the peculiar sphere of the missionary labours of St. Thomas goes back to the time of Origen, who died in the middle of the third century. The *Acts of St. Thomas*, nearly contemporary with Origen, as well as later tradition, generally associate the Indians, rather than the Parthians, with the name of the apostle, but the terms 'India' and 'Indians' had such vague signification in ancient times that the discrepancy is not great. The earliest form of the tradition clearly deserves the greater credit, and there is no apparent reason for discrediting the statement handed down by Origen that Thomas received Parthia as his allotted region.
c26.s1.59
The legend connecting St. Thomas with king Gondopharēs appears for the first time in the original Syrian text of the *Acts of St. Thomas*, which was composed at about the same date as the writings of Origen. The substance of the long story may be set forth briefly as follows:—
c26.s1.60
'When the twelve apostles divided the countries of the world among themselves by lot, India fell to the share of Judas, surnamed Thomas, or the Twin, who showed unwillingness to start on his mission. At that time an Indian merchant named Habbān¹ arrived in the country of the south, charged by his master, Gundaphar,² king of India, to bring back with him a cunning artificer able to build a palace meet for the king. In order to overcome the apostle's reluctance to start for the East, our Lord appeared to the merchant in a vision, sold the apostle to him for twenty pieces of silver, and commanded St. Thomas to serve king Gundaphar and build the palace for him.
c26.s1.61
¹ Syriac—Habbān; Greek—'Αββάνης; Latin—Abban or Abbanes.
c26.s1.62
² Syriac—Gundaphar, or Gūdnaphar; Greek—Γουνδαφόρος, Γουνδιαφόρος, or Γουντάφορος; Latin, Gundaforus, or Gundoforus.
c26.s1.63
'In obedience to his Lord's commands, the apostle sailed next day with Habbān the merchant, and during the voyage assured his companion concerning his skill in architecture and all manner of work in wood and stone. Wafted by favouring winds their ship quickly reached the harbour of Sandarūk.³ Landing there, the voyagers shared in the marriage feast of the king's daughter, and used their time so well that bride and bridegroom were converted to the true faith. Thence the saint and the merchant proceeded on their voyage, and came to the court of Gundaphar, king of India. St. Thomas promised to build him the palace within the space of six months, but expended the monies given to him for that purpose in almsgiving; and, when called to account, explained that he was building for the king a palace in heaven, not made with hands. He preached with such zeal and grace that the king, his brother Gad,¹ and multitudes of the people embraced the faith. Many signs and wonders were wrought by the holy apostle.
c26.s1.64
³ Syriac—Sandarūk, or Sanadrūk; Greek—'Ανδράπολις; Latin—Andranopolis, Andranobolys, Andronopolis, or Adrianopolis.
c26.s1.65
¹ Syriac and Latin—Gad; Greek—Γάδ. Other relatives of the king are also mentioned.
c26.s1.66
‘After a time, Sīfūr,² the general of king Mazdai,³ arrived, and besought the apostle to come with him and heal his wife and daughter. St. Thomas hearkened to his prayer, and went with Sīfūr to the city of king Mazdai, riding in a chariot. He left his converts in the country of king Gundaphar under the care of deacon Xanthippos.⁴ King Mazdai waxed wroth when his queen Tertia ⁵ and a noble lady named Mygdonia ⁶ were converted by St. Thomas, who was accordingly sentenced to death and executed by four soldiers, who pierced him with spears on a mountain without the city. The apostle was buried in the sepulchre of the ancient kings; but the disciples secretly removed his bones, and carried them away to the West.’⁷
c26.s1.67
² Syriac—Sīfūr; Greek—Σίφωρ, Σιφώρ, Σίφορος, Σιφώρας, or Σήμφορος; Latin—Saphor, Saphyr, Sapor, Siforus, Sephor, Siforatus, Sinforus, Sinfurus, or Symphoras.
c26.s1.68
³ Syriac—Mazdai; Greek—Μισδαῖος, or Μισδέος,; Latin—Misdeus, Mesdeus, or Migdeus.
c26.s1.69
⁴ Syriac—Xanthippos; Greek—Ξενοφῶν; Latin—omitted.
c26.s1.70
⁵ Syriac—Tertia; Greek—Τερτία, Τερεντιανή, or Τερτιανή; Latin—Treptia, Tertia, Trepicia, or Triplicia.
c26.s1.71
⁶ Syriac—Mygdonia; Greek—Μυγδονία; Latin—Mygdonia, or Migdonia.
c26.s1.72
⁷ Sokrates Scholastikos (fifth century) and other writers testify that the relics were enshrined at Edessa in Mesopotamia, where a magnificent memorial church was erected. The story in the text and the references to early Christian writers are taken, without verification, from the almost exhaustive essay by W. R. Philipps, entitled ‘The Connection of St. Thomas the Apostle with India’ (*Ind. Ant.*, vol. xxxii, 1903, pp. 1–15, 145–60). Bishop Medlycott’s book, *India and the Apostle Thomas*, 1905, supplies an invaluable collection of ecclesiastical texts.
c26.s1.73
Writers of later date, subsequent to the seventh century, profess to know the name of the city where the apostle suffered martyrdom, and call it variously Kalamina, Kalamita, Kalamēna, or Karamēna, and much ingenuity has been expended in futile attempts to identify this city. But the scene of the martyrdom is anonymous in the earlier versions of the tale, and Kalamina should be regarded as a place in fairyland which it is vain to try and locate on a map. The same observation applies to the attempts at the identification of the port variously called Sandarūk, Andrapolis, and so forth. The whole story is pure mythology, and the geography is as mythical as the tale itself. Its interest in the eyes of the historian of India is confined to the fact that it proves that the real Indian king, Gondopharēs, was remembered after his death, and was associated in popular belief with the apostolic mission to the Indians, and so, according to Origen, with the Parthians. Inasmuch as Gondopharēs certainly was a Parthian prince, and was too little known to the world in general to be named in a legend unless he really had some connexion with the introduction of Christianity into his dominions, it is permissible to believe that a Christian mission actually visited the Indo-Parthians of the northwestern frontier during his reign, whether or not that mission was conducted by St. Thomas in person. The traditional association of the name of the apostle with that of king Gondopharēs is in no way at variance with the generally received chronology of the reign of the latter as deduced from coins and an inscription.¹ On the other hand, it is to be observed that there is no trace of the subsequent existence of a Christian community in the dominions which had been ruled by Gondopharēs, and that if there be any truth in the tradition that the apostle was martyred at St. Thomas's Mount near Madras, he cannot possibly have suffered in the kingdom of Mazdai.² After much consideration, I am now of opinion that the story of the personal ministration and the martyrdom of St. Thomas in the realms of Gondopharēs and Mazdai should not be accepted. But unless a Christian mission connected by tradition with the rite of St. Thomas had visited the Indo-Parthian borderland it is difficult to imagine how the obscure name of Gondopharēs can have come into the story. If anybody chooses to believe that St. Thomas personally visited the Indo-Parthian kingdom his belief cannot be considered unreasonable. It is possible that, as Bishop Medlycott suggests, he may have first visited Gondopharēs, and then travelled to Southern India.
First 99 of 134 passages. Read on
Linked texts (3)
- Ἀλεξάνδρου ἀνάβασις — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek
- Ἰνδικά — Μεγασθένης, Ancient Greek
- Kanheri Inscription (No. 15) — Sanskrit