The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s1: Chronology
The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v1.c8.s1
- Language
- English
Chronology
v1.c8.s1.1
CHRONOLOGY and geography are the two eyes of history; let us therefore first proceed to determine the chronology of the Vākāṭakas, without which no orderly narration of their history is possible. There is, however, very little conclusive evidence on which to base this important investigation.
v1.c8.s1.2
It has been recently argued that the confused state of our information regarding the Vākāṭaka chronology can be solved by using our knowledge of the Chedi era as a sort of magic wand.¹ It is contended that the Chedi era of A.D. 248–9 was initiated by the Vākāṭakas to commemorate the accession of the founder of their house, Vindhyaśakti. No plausible case can be made out in support of this theory. The most convincing evidence to prove that it was the Vākāṭakas who began the Chedi era would be to show that they used it themselves in their own official records. In support of this contention it is argued that the Bhita seal of the (Vākā)ṭaka Mahārājādhirāja (Pravarasena) is dated in the year 37 of this era, that he has used it on a coin of his, which is said to have been issued in the 76th year of the Chedi era, and that his successor Rudrasena I has also used it on some of his coins, which were issued in the Chedi year 100. The arguments advanced to support the above contentions are very flimsy and do not bear any minute scrutiny. As to the Bhita seal being dated in the 37th year of the Chedi era, it may be pointed out that seals are normally not dated at all. The seal in question is, however, fragmentary; it merely refers to a king of kings (Mahārājādhirāja), without giving his proper name at all. There is thus no evidence for ascribing it to Pravarasena I. And even supposing that we do so for the sake of argument, it has to be pointed out that it does not bear the date 37; the peculiarly shaped branches of the tree on the seal were in fact mistaken for the symbols for 30 and 7.²
v1.c8.s1.3
¹ Jayaswal, *History of India*, 108-11: Pai in his paper: The Genealogy and the Chronology of the Vākāṭakas, in *JIH*, xiv, 184 ff., argues that the era was begun by Pravarasena I in A.D. 248 to commemorate his assumption of the title *samrāṭ* after the fourth horse-sacrifice.
v1.c8.s1.4
² Sir R. Burn in *JIH*, xiv, 269; Altekar in *JNSI*, v, p. 132.
v1.c8.s1.5
The theory that the coins of Pravarasena and Rudrasena I were issued in the years 76 and 100 respectively of the Chedi era is equally untenable. Pravarasena I issued no coins at all as far as we know, and the same is the case with regard to Rudrasena I. The coins attributed to Pravarasena I are really those of a ruler named Virasena, who ruled to the south of Mathura. Had they been issued by Pravarasena I, they should surely have been found within his kingdom, and not far away from it in the Mathura region. As it is, not a single coin of this type is found in the Madhya Pradesha, the centre of the Vākāṭaka kingdom. And finally, what is most important, these coins have no dates at all. What have been taken to be the symbols for the numerals 70 and 6 are actually merely parts of the palm-tree.¹ Coins attributed to Rudrasena I were issued at least 500 years before his time by some ruler of Kauśāmbī. They bear no name or date whatsoever; portions of Dharmachakra and Triratna symbols were wrongly supposed to stand for the letters Rudra and the symbol for the numeral 100.² It may be also pointed out that these so-called coins of Rudrasena are never found outside Kauśāmbī anywhere within the home-provinces of the Vākāṭaka kingdom.
v1.c8.s1.6
¹ Altekar in *JNSI*, v, 132.
v1.c8.s1.7
² *Ibid.*, 133.
v1.c8.s1.8
Nor is there any force in the argument that the Vākāṭakas must have started the Chedi era because it is supposed to have been used by their feudatories, the Magha rulers of Kauśāmbī. This assumption that the Maghas were using the Chedi era leads us in fact to impossible conclusions. Recent discoveries have shown that these kings were ruling over South Kośala also (Rewa State and Bundelkhand). The assumption that they were using the Chedi era leads to the conclusion that kings Vaiśravaṇa and Bhīmavarman were ruling at Kauśāmbī and in South Kośala from *c.* A.D. 355 to 377. Why then do they not figure in the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta among the kings subdued or overthrown by that mighty conqueror? These kings issued a copious currency; the Guptas are not known to have permitted any feudatory to have his own independent coinage. They could not therefore have been their contemporaries. Therefore the era used by them cannot have been the Chedi era.
v1.c8.s1.9
The theory then that the Vākāṭakas initiated the Chedi era does not bear close examination. There is no evidence to show that they have used it on any seals or coins. There is further another fact almost fatal to this theory. The Vākāṭakas officially issued a large number of charters, but none of these used the Chedi or any other era; they are all dated in the regnal years of the kings issuing them. If the Vākāṭakas were the founders of the Chedi era, if they used it on their coins and even on their seals, it is not very strange that they should have uniformly and consistently avoided its use in their own official charters, which were intended to be referred to as deeds of titles as long as the sun and the moon endured?³ It is true that the Vākāṭakas rose to power within a few years of the beginning of the Chedi era, but there is as yet no evidence to connect them with it. We have to solve the problems of Vākāṭaka chronology without the assistance which such evidence, had it existed, might have afforded.
v1.c8.s1.10
³ Pai has argued that a dynasty which starts an era need not necessarily use it, and refers to the Sātavāhanas who did not use the Śaka era begun by them (*JIH*, xiv, 26). The argument has no force, for it is certain that the Sātavāhanas did not begin the Śaka era. It was more than a thousand years after the collapse of the Sātavāhanas that popular fancy connected these rulers with the Śaka era. Jayaswal's argument that Pravarasena I must have started an era because he took the title emperor (*samrāṭ*) has not much evidential force; Maukhari, Cālukya, and Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings who took the title of Emperor, did not initiate any eras.
v1.c8.s1.11
The marriage of princess Prabhāvatīguptā, a daughter of the Gupta emperor Chandragupta II (c. A.D. 375 to 414), with Rudrasena II, the sixth king of the Vākāṭaka dynasty, supplies the only reliable clue in determining its chronology. Rudrasena II died young and there is clear evidence to show that his wife relied upon the assistance of her illustrious father during the trying years of a long regency which terminated in c. A.D. 410, when her surviving son Pravarasena II became old enough to take the reins of administration into his own hands. The birth of this prince may be placed in c. A.D. 390 during the short reign of Rudrasena II, c. A.D. 385 to 390. The father of Rudrasena II, Pṛthivīṣeṇa I, had a successful reign, which may be placed during the years c. A.D. 360 to 385. An expression used in connexion with this king shows that the Vākāṭaka dynasty had been ruling prosperously for about a century before his accession.¹ We may place its rise to power in c. A.D. 260. The founder of the dynasty, Vindhyaśakti, therefore probably ruled from c. A.D. 255 or 250 to c. 275. His son and successor, Pravarasena I, is identical with King Pravīra of the Purāṇas, which credit him with a long rule of sixty years.² There is sufficient evidence to show that the various statements which the Purāṇas make about this ruler are substantially correct; we can therefore accept the Paurāṇic tradition and assume that he ruled for sixty years, from c. A.D. 275 to 335. Gautamīputra, the eldest son of Pravarasena I, died before the long reign of his father came to an end; the latter therefore was succeeded by his grandson Rudrasena I, who may be presumed to have ruled from A.D. 335 to 360. We have already stated that Rudrasena’s son and grandson, Pṛthivīṣeṇa I and Rudrasena II, ruled from c. A.D. 360 to 385 and 385 to 390 respectively. Then followed the regency of Prabhāvatīguptā, the queen dowager, from c. A.D. 390 to 410, at the end of which her surviving son Pravarasena II assumed the full responsibility of administration. It may, however, be pointed out that the periods assigned to each of these six reigns are only tentative and it is not unlikely that future discoveries may lead to modifications, but these will not in any case be considerable. The chronology of the successors of Pravarasena II will be discussed later in the course of our account of their reigns.
v1.c8.s1.12
¹ Cf. Samudita-varṣaśatam-abhivardhamāna-kośa-daṇḍa-sādhana-santāna-putra-pautriṇaḥ, Dudia, Plates, EI, III, 160, ‘Who had sons and grandsons living and (adequate) implements of sovereignty consisting of army and treasury, continuously prospering and increasing for a hundred years’.
v1.c8.s1.13
² Vindhyaśaktisutaścāpi Pravīro nāma Vīryavān Bhokṣyate cha samāśśatīm samāptavaradakṣiṇaiḥ. Pargiter, DKA, p. 50.
Linked texts (2)
- Purāṇa — Sanskrit
- Udayendiram plates of Nandivarman (ed. Kielhorn 1895) — Sanskrit