a chronology of indian sculpture the sātavāhana chronology at nāsik

7/21/2019 A Chronology of Indian Sculpture the Stavhana Chronology at Nsik

1/41

A Chronology of Indian Sculpture: The Stavhana Chronology at NsikAuthor(s): Jeanne L. TraboldSource: Artibus Asiae, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1970), pp. 49-88Published by: Artibus Asiae PublishersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3249527.

Accessed: 17/10/2011 13:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Artibus Asiae Publishersis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArtibus Asiae.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artibushttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3249527?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3249527?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artibus


2/41

JEANNE

L.

TRABOLD

A

CHRONOLOGY OF INDIAN

SCULPTURE:

THE

SATAVAHANA CHRONOLOGY

AT

NASIK

h e

original

study

of which this

paper

s a

part proposed

a method of

analysis

which

would

make it

possible

to set

in

a

rough

chronological

order most

of the

important

works

of

Indian

sculpture

falling

between

about

z5o

B.C. and

A.D.

5

50o.

Even at

the scale

of a

disser-

tation

the materialdealt with

proved

too voluminous

for detailed

arguments.

The final

results

were

presented

in

a series of

charts,

while

one

important

area

was studied

intensively

as

a

demonstrationof method. Here, with more stringentspacelimitations,it is necessary o make

the demonstration

or

its

own

sake,

without

going

on

to its

original application;

and so the

paper

will deal

only

with the Buddhist

rock-cut shrines

at

Nisik

during

the

Sitavihana

or

Andhra

dynasty.

The

chronology

of the

Sitavihana

regime

has

been worked over

for

many yearsby

scholars.

All have been vehement

in

presenting

and

defending

their own

interpretations

of

the

inscrip-

tions

and

the externalhistorical

evidence,

and

equally

determined o

refute the

theories

of their

colleagues.

The

highly

controversialresults

will be shown

in this first

section,

which

will

involve

the

early

nscriptional

ecords

f the

dynasty

n

Mahdr.stra

and

Orissd,*

s well as related

inscriptions

f the

Ksatrapas

ho

were

contemporaries

f the middle

Andhra

kings.

PART I

THE

EARLIEST

SATAVAHANA KINGS:

In the

Pur.nic

lists,

the

first

Andhra

name s

variously

iven,

as follows:

Matsya:

Sisuka

Visu:

Sipraka

VT7ayu:

indhuka

Bhdgavata: rsalobali (i.

e.

strong idra)

Brahmanda:

hismaka

All of these names are

generally accepted

as

corruptions

of the name

Simuka,

who is con-

sidered to

be

the founder of

the

Sitavihana

line'.

All

the

Purdnas

noted

above

give

Krisna

as the second of the line. The third is

given

as

Sri-Mallakarni

n

the

Matsya, Sri-Sitakarrni

n

the

Vayu,

Brahmde.da,

and

Visu,

and

Sri-Sinta-

karna

(Rapson's

spelling)

in the

Bhdgavata.

*

To facilitate

pronunciation,

ch

is used instead of

c,

and

ri

instead of

.r

in

the

transliteration of

Indian

words.

SE.J.Rapson,

BMC

(1908),

p.

lxiv;

Pandit

Bhagwanlal Indraji,

BG,

XVI

(Bombay:

Government

Printing

Office,

I883), p.6Iz.

49


3/41

The

Ndndghdt

nscriptions:

Epigraphical

upport

or the initiationof the Satavahana

eign

comes from

a cave

in

the

Ndndghdt ass

in Mahdrdstra. ere are found on the

back

wall of a rest chamber

seriesof

labelsoverwhatwereprobablyportrait tatues, nd on the rightandleft walls wo sacrificial

inscriptions

f a

Queen

Ndyanikd.

n

part hey

are

ranslated s

follows:

Ontheleft

wall,

number ne:

... whoserule s

unopposed,

of

the

Lord]

of

the Dekhan ..

by

... the

daughter

f

the

Mahdrathi,

heincreaser f the

Arhgiya

ace,

..

[who

is

the]

wife of ...

sri,

the

Lordwho

gives

sons,

boons...

[who

is

the]

mother

of

Vedisriand the

motherof

the

illustrious

aktiz.

The

inscription

n the

right

wall,

number

wo,

appears

o be

the

continuation f the list of

sacrifices

hichwas

begun

on

the left

wall. Since hereare

many

gaps

n

the

epigraph,

t is not

really

clearwhether

he

queen

or

someoneelse made he

sacrifices. ome of

the names

which

appearn thisinscription o not appearn the labels

.

The

labelsare translated

y

Indraji

beginning

withnumberone as

follows:

Rdyd

Simuka

Sdtavdhano

irimdto;

he second

and hirdare

King

Sdtakarni

nd

Queen

Ndyanikd;

he

fourth

is

prince

Bhdya;

n

the fifthandsixth

both the

statues ndthe

inscriptions

re

ost;

the

seventh

is

Maharathdgrianka

iro;

all

of the

eight

and

ninthstatues re

gone

(the

feet

aresaid o

remain

on

some)

while the

inscriptions

ead

prince

Hakusiri nd

prince

Sdtavdhana4.

Btihler

eads hese

epigraphs

hus: number

hree,

"King

Simuka

dtavdhana,

he

illustrious

one";

number

our,

"[The

images]

of

the

queen,Ndganikd,

nd the

king,

the

illustrious

Sdtakarni";

umber

ive,

"The

royal

prince Bhdya";

number

six,

"The

Mahdrathi

feudal

baron]

Tranakayira";

umber

even,

"The

Royal

prince

Hakusiri";

umber

eight,

"The

royal

prince

Sdtavdhana"5.

Bt*hler

ndIndraji o notagreeon therelationshipf thosenamedn the

inscriptions.

t is

Indraji's pinion

hat

n

the tradition f such

nscribed tatues he donorwould

be

represented

as would

his

parents,

brothers,

and

sons

according

o their

ages6.

If this werethe

case,

the

sequence

would be

Simuka

Sdtavahana,

he founderof the

line,

Sdtakarni,

imuka's

on,

and

Sdtakarni's

ife,

Ndyanikd.

he next

igure

would

be

Kumdra

Bhdya.

ince

he

is calledKumdra

or

prince,

he

cannot

havebeen

a

king.

His

relationship

s

not

really

lear.Even

though

here s

a blank

areawhere statues

ive

and

six

with their

inscriptions

hould

be,

Indraji

hought

hat

king

Vedisiri

and his

wife must have been

represented

at

this

point,

because

t

seemed

unlikely

that

the

person

who was said to have made the

inscription

would not

appear

n the

group

of

statues7.

Statues

seven,

eight

and

nine

are not

kings.

They

represent

an

officerand two

princes.

Indraji's

charted

geneology

follows":

2

G.

BUhler,

"The

Ndndgh.t

Inscriptions",

ASWI,

V

(1883), pp.6o-6x.

3

Ibid.

4

Indraji,op.cit.,

pp.6x1-61z2.

s

The

number is

Biuhler's

or

the

inscriptions, op.

cit.,

pp.

61-64.

6

Indraji,

op.

cit.,

p.

611.

7

Ibid.

8

Ibid.,

p.61iz2.

50


4/41

I I

Simuka

Satavdhana

Prince

Bhdya

I

Sdtakani

married

Ndyanikd)

VedisiriSdtakani

Prince

Hakusiri

Prince

Stavdhana

In

the

chart

Prince

Bhdya

would

appear

o

be

the

brother

f Simuka.

According

o the

five

Purdnas

n

use

here,

the second

king

of

the

Sdtavdhanas,

risna,

wasthe brotherof

Simuka.

However,

no one seems

o

equate

Prince

Bhdya

with

Krisna,

nor

does

the lattername

appear

n

the

epigraphs

t the

Ndndghdt.

he

reason or this

in

Indraji's

pinion

s,

The omissionof

his

statue

n the

Ndndghdt

hamber

may

be

due to

his

having

been

the

brother

f

Simuka,

s

copperplate

ndother

nscriptions

ot

unusually

mit

to mentionbrothersq.

Some

difficulty

oes arise

hen asto what

relationship

risna

was

to Simuka.

n

his

inscrip-

tional

record

at

Nasik

Cave

i9

(Indraji's

umber

3),

he is called

"ofthe Sdtavdhana

amily"

;

it

seemed

unlikely

o

Indraji

hat

such

a

phrase

would

be used

concerning

brotherof the

founder

of the

dynasty.

Btihler

hazards

o

guesses

about

he

two

missing nscriptions

which

Indraji

elt

were

those

of Vedisiri

ndhis

wife,

but

n reference

o

his

inscription

umber

ine,

he

thinks

t

belongs

o a

later

period,

possibly

o

the time

of

Gautamiputra

dtakarni

r

Pulumdyi.

n

his

opinion,

t

is

not

contemporaneous

ith

the others

n the chamber

".

B

ihler's

Geneology

-t

6

Mahdrathi

ranakayiro

King

and Lordof

the Deccan

(mentioned

n

*"

,

father

*-w

Simuka

Sdtavdhana

of

the

sacrificing ueen)

*-

4

Queen

Ndyanikd

(who

offered

the sacrifices

in

-.V

-

King

STtakarni

-

5

Kum Ira

BhIya

(mentioned

as

([la]

not

found

the Lord...

in

+

x)

sini

in -W ,

line 4)

*

7

Kumira

Hakusiri

-

8 Kumira

Sitavihana

(-"

i

Sati)

(Vedisiri

in

*"

)iz

9

Ibid.,

p.

6I3.

xo

Ibid.

I

Bidhler,

op. cit.,

p.

64.

12

Ibid.,

p.

6

8.

5I


5/41

Both

Rapson

and

Bthler

assume

hat

Queen

Niyaniki

wasthe mother

of Vedisiriand Satisiri

(Sati-Sirimata

aku-Siri),

ndthatshe

governedduring

he

minority

f

Vedisiri.

They dentify

Sati

Sirimata

f the

inscription

with

Hakusiri

f the

relief13.

apson's eneological rrangement

is

the

sameas

thatof

Biihler's

above,

but

he has no

place

n his scheme or

Prince

Bhaya.

Biihler

believes hat

Sdtakarni

s not a name,but anepithet Biruda), ndthe ... sirimustbe

the

end

of his

secondname.

Also,

it is

possible

hatHaku

may

be a Prakrit

corruption

f

Sakti.'1

A

fourth

opinion

on the line

of

descent

at

Ninighit,

was

expressed

y

Gopalachari,

ho

believed

hatthetwo

missing

relievosheld

statuesof

Vedisiri

and

Satisiri.Neither

of

theseare

the two

princes

who were mentioned

n

the sacrificial

inscription,

ince neither

of

them

is

the

eldest

or the Kumdra.This means

hat the sacrificial

epigraph

s

laterthan the

labels

of

the

reliefs.

Further

e

concludes

hat

Hakusiri

nd

Satisiri

re

not one and

he

sameas

both

Rapson

andBthler

do's.

The

points

hat

thesefourscholars

o

seem

willing

o

accept

arethatSimuka

s

the

first

of

the

kingsreigning

under he name

of

Satavdhana;

hat

Krisna,

he

second

uler,

doesnot

appear

in

the

epigraphs

t

Ndndghdt;

nd hat hethird

king

s

named

Sitakarni.

Thedates

hey

assign

these

inscriptions

ary

more

widely

than do theirtranslations,

artly

becauseof the

Purdnic

discrepancies

nd

partly

becauseof the

interpretation

f two other

inscriptions

mentioning

King

Satakar.ni.6

The

Hdthigumphd

nscription:

The

first

not

necessarily

n

time)

of the two

is found

n

a

semi-naturalavern

n

Orissd,

he

Hdthigumphd

t

Khandagiri,

dayagiri.

t

records

he

events

n

the life of

King

Khdravela

f

Kalifiga

ndmentions

King

Sdtakarni,

ho

held ands o the

west of

Kalifiga.

Of all

the

epi-

graphic

ecords

which contain

nformation

regarding

he

Sdtavdhanas,

his

represents

he

epi-

tome

of

disagreement

nd

confusion.

The

dating

of

thisrecord

ranges

romthe

second

century

B.C.to

the

early

decades

f the

first

century

A.D.

Indraji

urns to this

inscription

n orderto date the

Sdtakarni

f the

Ndndghdt

ecord

because,

"Except

or

the form

of their

early

nscriptions

hereareno

materialsromwhich

he

age

of

these

early

Andhra

kings

can

be

determined

7."

It

was once the

opinion

of several

scholars,

omeof

whom have

changed

heir

minds,

hat the

Hdthigumphd

ecord

contained

date

n

the

Mauryan

ra.If this

were

so,

and

if

the

Sdtakarni

f

Khdravela'second

year

was

GStakarni

,

a date or the

Andhras

would

be

established.What ollows s

a

resumd

f the

pro-

blems

presented

by

the

implementation

of

this

record.

Indraji

ranslated

and

interpreted

t

as

follows:

"In

the second

year

[after

Khiravela's installation

as

king]

Sitakarni

protecting

the

west

sends wealth

consisting

chiefly

of

horses,

elephants,

men,

and

chariots."

In

the thirteenthyearof his reignkingKhiravelarecords he makingof pillarsand other

works

at

Udayagiri,

and

gives

as

the date of the

making

of the

work,

and also

it

may

'3

Rapson, op.cit.,

p.xlvi;

Biihler,

op.cit., p.68.

'4

Ibid.,

p.69;

K.

Gopalachari

does

not

accept

this

view.

Early History

of

the Andhra

Country

Madras:

University

of

Madras,

1941),

p.

33-

x

s

Ibid.,

p.

3

3.6

The

Purinas give

the name

Stakarni

for between

5

and

9

of

the

Andhra

Kings.

17

Indraji,

op.cit.,

p.61

3.

52


6/41

be

assumed f

the

writing

of the

inscription,

..

"In

the one

hundred

nd

sixty-fifth

year

of the

Maurya

ule,

afterone hundred

nd

sixty-four ears

had

passed

away18."

Indraji,

herefore,

ates

Sdtakarni

n

the

154th

year

of the

Mauryan

raof

Kalifiga

nd

raises

the

question,

does

this era

begin

with

Chandragupta

r Agoka?Since

Adoka's hirteenth

dict

says

he

took

Kalifiga

n

his

eight

year,

his could be

the

basis or

establishing Mauryan

ra n

Kalifiga

9.

Indraji

used the dates

which

Sir

A.Cunningham

established for

Aooka'saccession to the

throne,

260

B.C.0zo.

Dr. P. H. L.

Eggermont

believes

that

Agoka

ascended

the

throne

in

268

B.C.2z.

If the base date is taken

as

268

B.C.

minus

the

eight

years

he

ruled

before

conquering

Kalifiga, 260

B.C. would

then

be

the

time for the establishmentof a

Mauryan

era. This date

minus

164

or

165

would

provide

a date of

95

B.C. for the thirteenth

year

of

Khdravela. t would

put

him

on

the throne first

about

io8

B.C.,

andsincethe mention of Stakarni

comes

in Khdra-

vela's

second

year,

date

Sdtakarni bout io6 B.C. With

the

given

date of

260

B.C.

for AMoka's

accession

to

the

throne,

his

eighth

year

would be

252

B.C. This would be

(if

this line of inter-

pretation s followed) the initialyearfor the Mauryanerain Kalifigaand date Khdravelaabout

90

B.C.,

and

~itakarni,

88

B.C.

However,

a number of

questions

have arisen about the

translation

of line sixteen in the

inscription:

Panatariya

athivsasate

rajamuriyakile

ochhine

ha

choyatha

gasatikutariyano22z.

Does

it

really

ay:

"In

he

onehundred nd

sixty-fifth ear

of the

Maurya

ule,

after

one hundred

and

sixty-four ears

had

passedaway?"

f

it

does,

thenone mustdecidewhen the

Mauryan

ra

began.

Did

it

begin

with

Adokaor with

Chandragupta?

hy

are there

no

Mauryan

ecords

dated

n

this

era?

In

1917,

K.

P.

Jayaswal

ndertook

he

clarificationf

the

reading

f

the

whole

inscription23.

Heread ine sixteennthesame ashion hatIndraji ad,andclaimedhat twasaclearlymarked

sentence

n

proper

grammar24.

n

regard

o the initiation f

the era

he

disagreed,

nd

put

it

at

the time of

Chandragupta aurya's

oronation.

He felt there was more

justification

or

this

since

Chandragupta

as a

Jain2s.

He dates the

Khdravela

inscription

a.

160-165

B.C. His

chronology

based

on

his

dating

of the era s as follows:

236

B.C.,

Death

of Adoka

213

B.C., Foundation f tavrhana dynasty

197

B.C.,

Birth

of

Khiravela

18

Ibid.,

p.614.

19

Ibid.

20

A more recent analysis of the problem of A'oka's regnal dates has been advanced by Dr. P.H.L.Eggermont, The

Chronology

f

the

Reign

of

Afoka

Moriya

Leiden:

E.

S.

Brill,

1956).

21

Ibid.,

p.

126.

22

Indraji, op.

cit.,

p.

613.

2a

The most

frequent

comment of

scholars before

they begin

their

translation of this

epigraph

is

that the

years

have dealt

roughly

with

the

stone,

and that

there are

many gaps

in the

inscription

due to

erosion

and

age.

24

Jayaswal,JBORS,

IV

(1917),

pp. 449-50.

25

Ibid., p.452.

In

a note

to

his

article in

the same

year,

JBORS,

IV

(1917),

PP.474-485ff.,

he

offers the

possibility

that it

might

have

begun

with

Chandragupta's

abdicationto become

a

Jain

ascetic.

53


7/41

188

B.C.,

Fall

of

Mauryan

ine

Accession of

Pusyamitra

Sufiga

18o

B.C.,

Sitakarni

I

16o

B.C.,

Date

of

Hdthigumphd

inscriptionz6

It

can

be

seen from

Jayaswal's

chronolgy

that

he

believed that

Kharavela

and

Pusyamitra

SuAga

were

contemporaries,

and

that

the

Sdtakarni

whom

Khdravela

mentions

in

his

second

year

is the

S8takarni

of

the

Ndndghdt

nscription27.

His

chronology

would

establish

the

Sdtavd-

hana'sat

Paithan

about

210-2z13

B.C.

Stakarni

I

would come

to the

throne

33

years

ater.

Also

in

1917,

R.D.

Banerji

wrote

on the same

inscription

and

supported

the

dating

in

the

Mauryan

ra. He

flatly

rejected

Fleet's

and

Ltider's

opinion

that

there

was no

date

n

the

Mauryan

era78,

on the

basis that

Fleet

and

Laider's

dating

and

reading

of

certain

numbers

resulted in

inconsistency

29.

Again

in

1927, 1928,

and

1930,

Jayaswal

and

Banerji

published

the

results of

their

intensive

re-examination

of the

rock

inscription.

The

opinions they

then

voiced

completely

eliminated

the possibilityof datingKhdravelan a Mauryan ra.The translationof this vital sectionin line

sixteenwas

brought

more

into line with

that of

Fleet,

and

read

variously:

The

four-fold

AAfiga-Saptika

f

sixty-four

ections

ost

in

the

time

of the

Maurya

king]

he

restores

0.

and

he

causes o

be

compiled

xpeditiously

he

[text]

of

the

seven-fold

Arigas

[sic]

of the

sixty-four letters]3'.

As a

substitution or the

now

nonexistent

Mauryan

ra,

line

six

(in

1927)

was

said

to

refer

to a

Nanda

ra

with

the

numerals

i-vasa-sata

eadeither

as

o103

r

as

30032.

By

1930,

Jayaswal

and

Banerji

were

quite

certain t

mustbe

10

o3

.

Their

ranslation

f line

eight

also

was

suggested

asa meansof dating he inscription y the synchronismf the Greekking,Demetrios , and

Khdravela.

Formerly

he

mitaormitra f

this line

was

correlated ith

the

Suigas

3.

In

1929

another

cholar,

B.

Barua35

published

his

translation f

the

Khiravela

record

n

which

he

found

among

other

points

of

disagreement:

o

statement

bout

a

Greek

king

Dimita-

Demetrios

abandoning

Mathura;

o mention

of a

Mauryan

ra;

no

allusion

o a

Nanda

era;

26

Ibid.,

p.468.

27

Other

points which

Jayaswal

raises at this time

(1917),

and

which become

points

of

disagreement

in

later

translations

concern:

(i)

the

identification of

King

Nanda;

(2)

the

translation

of

ti-vasa-sata,

does

it

mean

103

or

300;

(3)

is

the

Mitra

pursued

to Mathurd n the

eighth year

Pusyamitra? 4)

is

Bahdsamitra r

Brihaspatimitra

he

same

as

Pusyamitra

or

Vasujyestha?

28

R.D.

Banerji,

JBORS,

III,

pp.489ff.;

J.F.Fleet,

JRAS

(1910o),

p.242ff.,

824;

H.

Liders, El,

X

(1910o),

pp.

16o-x6i

I345.

29

It

was

Fleet's

opinion

that the

Maurya

Kal,

and the numbers

referred

to

the

loss

of

sixty-four

Aigas

(Jain

scriptures)

in the time of the Mauryans.Liiders read ti-vasa-sata s 10o3 years since King Nanda, or since the Nanda Kings. Thus

the fifth

year

of Khdravela

would

be counted

103

years

from some

point

during

the

reign

of

King

Nanda or the

Nanda

Kings.

30

Jayaswal,JBORS,

XIII

(1927), p.235.

a3 K.P.Jayaswal

and

R.D.Banerji,

El,

XX

(1930),

p.89.

32

Jayaswal,

op.cit.,

p.237.

33

Jayaswal

and

Banerji,op.cit., p.75.

34

Ibid.h,

.76.

3s

Old

Brdhmi

Inscriptions

in

the

Udayagiri

and

Khanagiri

Caves

(Calcutta:

University

of

Calcutta,

1i929).

54


8/41

no

reference o

a

corpus

of

Jain

canon,

and that there

was a

slight

possibility

that the name

of

Sdtakarni

id occur

in

the record. He elaboratedon these theories

at

great length

and came

to

the conclusion that

it was

impossible

to

get

an

indisputable

date for

Khiravela.

Barua's

opinion

is

well

supported

by

the various

interpretations

which have been

given

to

this epigraph.This being the case, there is no secureway to date the Andhrasby synchroni-

zation with

Khiravela.

Even if the date of the

Hithigumphi

record

were

secure,

there is

still

the

problem

of

deciding

which

Sitakarni

of the Andhra line

may

have been

mentioned36.

Attempts

have been

made to date

both the

Ninighit

and

Hithigumphi

records

on

paleographic

comparisons

between themselves and

epigraphs

at Sifichi and

Besnagar.

That

both

are

early

is

generally

accepted

by

scholars,

but

how

early

is still a matterof

disagreement.

f the

internal

evidence of the

Hithigumphi

inscription

were

less

open

to

argument,

he

paleographic

vidence

might

be

more

convincing.

But

a

detailed

discussion of

paleography

s

outside the

scope

of

this

study.

The

Sifichi

Inscription:

The second of the two

inscriptions

related to the

Nnighdt

record,

is found at

S.fichi

in

Bhopal

State.

It

is

a

donative

epigraph

ound

on the

back of the

top

bracketof the

south

torana

of

Stzpa

One,

incised on the

dome

of

the

central

sti~pa

hown

in

the

panel.

It

reads:

Gift of

Anarhda,

he son of

Visithi

(Vdsisththi),

the

foreman of the

artisans

(dve-

sanim)

of

rdjn

Siri-Sdtakani36.

According

to

Marshall he

south

gateway

of

St7pa

One is

the earliest of

the

toranas

t

SdfichI.

He is

loath

to

identify

this

Sitakarni

specifically,

but is

"practically

ertain

hat the

king

referred

to

is one of the

Sitakarnis

who

appear

ater

in

the

Paurdyic

lists...

7"

and is not

the same

as

Sitakarni

of the

Ninighit

and

Hithigumphi

inscriptions.

Marshall's

reasoning

n

dating

the

Sdfichi

Sitakarnipost-Nindghit

was

based

partly

on the

internal

evidence

of the

Hithigumphi.

He

believed that

the

Sitakarni

at

Sifichi

was

the same

mentioned

in

Khdravela's

description

of

his

attack

to the

West.

He

was of

the

opinion

that

this

must

have

occurred after

the

reign

of

the

Sufiga

dynasty

in

the

West,

because

they

were not

mentioned. He

feels that

had the

Sufigas

still

been

in

control of the

Westernareas

some

recogni-

tion

of this fact

would

surely

have

been found in

the

epigraph3as.

As

it

is,

Marshall

hinks

the

area

was under

control of

several

governors

and

not a

single

powerful

dynasty39.

The

logic

seems to

be

that the

presence

of

SitakarnIi's

ame

as

a

rijan

at

Sifichi,

a

former

ufiga

stronghold,

would then

equate

him

with

the time

of

Khiravela.

However,

this

is not

the

only

reason

Marshall

has for

identifying

the

Sitakarni

of Safichi

with

Sitakarni

II

of

the

Purdnas.

He

believes that

on

grounds

of

paleography

the

Nnighit

inscription

was earlier

than

the

Sifichi

or

the

Hithi-

gumphi

which

were

contemporary.

36

John

Marshall,

Guide o

Sdchb(Calcutta:

Superintendent

of

Government

Printing,

1918),

pp.Iz, 48;

J.Marshall

and

A.Foucher,

The

Monuments

f

Saicbi

(3

Vols.;

Calcutta,

n.d.),

pp.

36-37;

H.

Ltiders,

"List of

Brdhmi

Inscriptions",

Appendix,

EI,

X

-

346,

p.42.

37

Marshall,

op.

cit.,

p.

1

3.

38

K.P.

Jayaswal

in

his

early

translation

of the

Khdravela

nscription

thought

that

the

gufigas

were

mentioned. Later

he

thinks it is a

Greek

king.

Supra, p. 54,

n.27

and

n.

34.

39

Marshall

and

Foucher,

op.cit.,

pp.275-277.

55


9/41

Jayaswal

ended

to

agree

with

Marshall

hat

the

Sfiichi

I

inscription belonged

to

8dtakarni

I

who

reigned

for

fifty-six

years.

He also

based

this

judgment

on

the

style

of

the

charactersat

Nin4ghdt,

Hdthigumphi,

and

Sifichi

with the first of

these

two

being

the older.

Jayaswal's

date

for

Sdfichi

then

would be

ca. 120

B.C.40.

Marshall'swould be

the

middle or the latter

half

of

the first

century

B.C.*".

Many

other

opinions

have

been

voiced

on the identificationof

the

Sitakarni

at

Sdfichi

and

the

date of this

inscription.

Some of these

are cited

below.

The

oldest

interpretations

re

based

on information of

paleographic

style

which

was availablebefore

the

discovery

and

translation

of the

Besnagar

Garuda

pillar

inscription.

This

pillar,

although

noticed

by

Cunningham

n

his

survey

reports

of

1873

to

187742,

was not cleaned of its

coating

of

red lead

until

19o8-19o943,

at

which

time

the

inscription

was found.

It

apparently

comes

from the

Sufiga

period,

and is

dated

variously

140-108

B.C.

Once the

Besnagar

epigraph

was

translated,

t could

be

used as a

stylistic

tool.

Previously

the AMokan

inscriptions

of

the

third

century

B.C.

were the

only early

dated controls for

paleo-

graphy.

This

discovery

changed

some

minds**.

Ramiprasdd

Chanda45

s

one of the

principle

sourcesmost scholarshave consultedin their

examination

of

the Sdfichi

inscription46.

Chanda

elt

that the

Sdfichi

inscription

of Sdtakarni

was

later

n datethanAMoka's

dicts,

he

Besnagar

Garuda

tambha,

he Bhdrhutoraza

inscription

of

the

Sufigas,

nd

the

Ndndghdt

pigraphs.

He

based

his

opinion

on the

shape

of the

letters*47.

B

hler48elt that he Sdfichi

nd

Ndndghdtnscriptions

ere dentical

n

style,

and

put

them

in thesecond

century

B.C.

partly

because

f

the Khdravela

nscription.

Gopalachari

ho

seemed

to

accept

Chanda's

equencerejected

his identification f the

S~itakarni

s

the

sixth

in

the

line,

who

reigned

rom

75

to

25

B.C.,

because

Gopalachari's

chronology

would

put

number

ix about

180-

130o

B.C.

He

could

see

no

reasonfor not

picking

a later

Sdtakarni

or

the one

at

Sdfichi.

Further,

he

rejected

Biihler's

quation

of

Sdfichi

nd

Ndndghdt.

He would

put

Sifichi

ater49.

In

reviewing

hese

theories,

Spink

commented

hat

the

Sdfichi

cript

eemed

elated o the

Suilga

and

post-Sufiga

nscriptions

f

the

nearby

regions,

while neitherof

the

other

two

(Ndndghdt

nd

Hdthigumphd)

ecords

how

these

elements.

Then

he stated

hat

paleography

mayonly

be

used

up

to

a

point.

Other

nformation

was

then needed

to

fix

the dates

of

an

inscription

within

narrow

limits

so.

40

Jayaswal

and

Banerji,

op.cit.,

p.74.

4

Marshall,

op.ci., p.

13.

42

A.Cunningham,

ASI,

X

(1874-1875

and

1876-1877),

pp.41Iff.

43

J.Marshall,

JRAS

(1908), pp.

1953ff.;

J.Ph.Vogel,

ASIAR

(1908-09),

pp.

iz6ff.;

J.F.Fleet, JRAS

(1909),

pp.

io87ff.;

D.R.

Bhandarkar,

ASIAR

(I913-14

and

1914-15),

pp.

186-234

and

pp.66-88;

D.R.

Bhandarkar,

JBBRAS,

LXIV,

Vol.

23

(London,

1910), pp.

o104ff.

**

HCIP,II,

p.

195,

n. i.

4s

RamdprasddChanda,MASI, No. i, VotiveInscriptionsrom Salcbh Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing,

1919).

46

Some

who

have

cited

his

opinion

in

apparent

support

of

its

sequence

are:

Barua,

op.cit.,

pp.

15off.;

Gopalachari,

op.cit.,

p.29,

n.

Io;

W.

Spink,

"Rock-cut

Monuments

of

the

AndhraPeriod:

Their

Style

and

Chronology"

(unpublished

doctoral

dissertation,

Harvard

University,

Cambridge,

1954),

P.

86.

4'

Chanda,

op.

cit.,

p.

6.

48

Biuhler, IA,

XXXIII

(1904), p.

86-pre-Besnagar.

49 Gopalachari,

op.

cit.,

p.

29,

n.

Io0.

so0

Spink, op.cit.,

p.89;

Jayaswal

and

Banerji, op.cit.,

p.73.

56


10/41

Thus far it is

obvious that neither

the

Purdnas

nor the

inscriptions

have

provided

either

a

securedate

or a confident

dentification

of

S.takarni.

Of the

epigraphs

so far discussed

only

one

is

found in

relationship

to

sculpture

which

lends itself to a

stylistic

examination.

That

is

at

Safichi.

THE LATER

SATAVAHANAS

AND THE

KSATRAPAS:

The

Ndsik

Caves:

Nineteen nd

Eighteen:

It is the

intent

of

this

study

to

provide

the

further

dating

information

Spinkspeaks

of

through

stylistic

analysis

of

sculpture.

Therefore,

the

model

site to

be

examined n

some

detail is

Nasik.

Here

there are a

number

of

Sdtavahana

epigraphs

found

in

connection with

sculpture.

The

descriptive

material

for Nasik

is

derived from

photographss,

and

Indraji's,

Ndsiks5.

The

inscriptions

are

taken

from

Indraji;s3

rom the

ASWI

Vol.IV,

pp.98

to

i16;

and

from E.

Senarts4.

There

are some

twenty-four

caves at

Nisik,

six

of

which

contain

inscriptions

of

the

Sdtavdhanas. he numberingrunsfrom west to east.The two earliestcaves arepresumedto be

numbers

Nineteen

and

Eighteen.

Cave

Nineteen

is a vihdra

beyond

Eighteen

and

below

Twenty's

court.

It is in three

parts:

a

veranda,

a

hall,

and six

cells.

The hall

is

14

feet

broad,

14

feet

deep,

and

8

feet

high;

in

the

back wall

andin

each

side wall

are

two cells.

Over the

doorway

of each

cell

is

a

horseshoe

arch,

and

between

each

pair

or

arches s an

undulating

band of

rail

tracery

one

foot

broad.

The

cells

are

about

6 feet

4

inches

by

7

feet z

inches

deep.

The

entry

o the

hall

is

3

feet

wide with

windows

one to

each

side

with stone

tracery.

On

the

upper

side

of

the

right

window is

the

well

preserved

inscription

number

twenty-two.

When

Krishna

of the

Sdtavdhana

family

was

king [this]

cave

[was]

made

by

the

great

Sramana

minister,

[an]

inhabitant

of

Ndsikass.

The

veranda

s 16 feet

broad,

4

feet z

inches

deep,

and the

ceiling

is

7

inches lower

than

that

of

the

hall.

There are

two

pillars

and two

pilasters.

They

are

eight

sided

in

the middle

of the shaft

and

square

n

the

upper

part.

Indraji

says

these are

similarin

style

to

Girndr n

Kathidwad

and

Udayagiri

n

Orissa.

Above

the

pillar

s

abelt of

rock

dressed ike

timber.

The

roof,

now

broken,

projected

over

thiss6.

The

Purdeas

record

that

the

successor

of the

Andhra

King

Simuka

would be his

brother

Kisinas7.

Though

it

seemed

strange

to

find

the

brother

of the

founder

of

a

dynasty

referred o

in such

a

manner,

Indraji

elt

that just

on the

paleographic

evidence

N.sik

Nineteen's

epigraph

could

not

be

separated

by

too

long

an

intervalfrom

that

of

N~nighit.

Thus it

couldbe

assumed

that the inscriptions

of this

cave may have

been carved

just prior

to

the

Ninigh.t

epigraphs,

s'

Taken

by

Gary

Tarr

and

J.

L.Davidson.

s2

BG,

XVI, pp.

541-629.

3sa

bid.

s4

EI,

VIII

(1905),

pp.

59-96.

55ss

ndraji,

op.cit.,

p.593.

s6

Ibid.;

Gopalachari,

op.cit.,

see

P1.

xii.

s1

Supra,

p. 5

1.

57


11/41

and that it

was

possibly

contemporaneous

with

the

reign

of the

second

Satavahana

Krisnass8.

Unfortunately

there

is

not sufficient

sculptural

material at the

Nandghdt

site

to make

any

stylistic

appraisal

or

comparison,

with

any

Ndsik

material.

The exterior of

Nindghdt appears

o

have

been

completely

restored and screened ns9. On

the interior

only

the feet of the relief

figures

remain. These are frontal and show no shift of

bodily

weight6o.

In

Indraji's

discussion

of a

chronology

for Ndsik

and

the

Sdtavdhanas,

e

suggested

that the

pillars

of

the facade of Cave Nineteen resembled

those found

in

Orissd6I.

It

is not

known to

which

Orissdn

cave he referred.It could not

have

been

the

Hdthigumphd

as

that

is

a natural

cavern

without

pillars.

Besides it has

already

been shown

that

no

specific

date

is

ascertainable

through

the

Hdthigumphd nscription.

The next

cave

related to

Cave

Nineteen

by

inscriptional

evidence is

Cave

Eighteen,

the

chaitya

all. The

inscription,

number

nineteen,

which is on the

fifth and

sixth

pillars

of the

right

hand

row is

as

follows:

[This] chapel or cave is made on the Trirasmimountain by the royal minister

Arahalaya

and

by

Sdtariyd

[Sk.

Satdrya],

the

daughter

of

Lisilanaka,

the foster-

mother

(?)

of

the

great

king

Hakusirl

[Sk.

Hakusri],

the female

storekeeper

of

the

royal

minister

Agiyatanaka

[Sk.

Agneyatanuka],

and the mother

of

Kapainanaka

[Sk.

Kripanaka?]

2.

In

a footnote to

the translationhe

admitted

difficulty

in the

translationof the word

Bhata-

pdlikd.

A

second translation

of this

epigraph

was

given

by

Senart63.

By Bhatapdlikd

granddaughter]

f

Mahdhakusiri

nd

daughter

of the

royal

officer

Arahalaya rom Chalisilana,wife of the royal officer Agiyatanaka,of the treasure

office,

mother of

Kapalnanaka,

his

chaityagtriha

as been caused

to be

perfected

on

this mount

Tiranhu.

Two

other

inscriptions,

numbers

wenty

and

twenty-one,

occur

in

connection

with

this

cave.

The first is

found under

the

arch

of

the

entry

and

reads

as

follows:

The

gift

of the

village

of Dhambika

by

the inhabitants

of

Isika6-.

The second

is

found on

the

molding

of

the

doorway

to the

proper

left

and above the

Yaksa

figure.

The

middle

railing

and Yaksha made

by

... and

Nandasri6s.

ss8

Indraji, op.

cit., p. 613.

This

would

necessarily

be

the

sequence

according

to

Purdanic

istory.

so

Gopalachari,

op.cit.,

P1.

VIII,

I.

6o

Ibid.,

P1.

II.

61

Indraji,

op.cit.,

p.

613.

62

Ibid.,

p.

590.

63

EI,

VIII,

p. 91.

64

Indraji,

op.cit.,

p.

590.

6s

Ibid.,

p.

591I.

58


12/41

In a footnote o his translation

f

inscription

umber

wenty, ndraji

uggested

hat

t

could

be takento mean hat

the

people

of Ndsik

gave

a

village,

Dhambika,

o someone

unnamed.

This

s unusual

ince

t is

usually king

who woulddonatea

village.

Forthis reasonhe

offered

a second

meaning

whichread

"[This

arch]

he

gift

of

the

guild

of

grain

dealers,

nhabitants

f

Ndsika"66.

Senartnterpretedhe inscription s evidence hatthe cave wasoriginally onated

by

these

people

and was finished

by

those

of the

inscription

number

nineteen67.

LUiders

rendered umber

wenty

n almost

he same

ashionas

Indraji,

ut

he

changed

he

phrase

"by

the inhabitants"

o

"of the

Ndsikakas"68.No

difficulty

ppeared

o existin

the

translation

f

number

wenty-one.

Returning

o

epigraph

number

nineteen,

he

variations

n

the

rendering

etween

hat

of

Indraji

nd Senart69 ould make he date

of

the

cave

varyby

two to

three

generations.

ndraji

put

the

dedication

f the

cave

in

the

reign

of

the

great

king

Hakusiri

by

his

foster mother

Lisilanaka.

akusiri,

ccording

o the

Ndndghdt

nscription,

s one of

thesonsof

Stakarni

and

Ndyanikd.

f

Indraji's

hronological

chemes

followed,

Hakusiri

wouldbe onthe throne

about

70

B.C.70.

The

king

Krisna Kanha)

f

the

Purd as

would

have

beenthe

great

uncleof

Hakusiri

if the

geneology

s correct.This

assumption

oesnot

place

morethana

generation

nd a half

between

Krisna

and

Hakusiri.

t

is basedon the

possibility

hat

Vedisiri,

Hakusiri's

rother,

was

on

the throne irst.

[See

page

5 1].

He

wasfollowedwithin

a

generation

y

Hakusiri.The

Purdas

are

of

no use

n

this

assumption

ince hesenamesdo

not

appear

fter

Krisna.

Further

complications

ere

suggestedby

Gopalachari

who

said of this

inscription

f

Mahdhakusiri

that:

"Sincehe does not

bear

he

title

of

Rdjdn

which

Sdtavihana

ings

nvariably

o,

we

cannot

ubscribeo the

view of

Rapson

and Bihler

thatthe

Hakusiri f

our

inscrip-

tion

ascended he

throne71."

He

does

identify

he

Plrnotsafitu

f the

VdyuPurd a

with

Satisiri72.

If

Senart's

nterpretation

f

this Cave

Eighteen

nscription

s next

examined

t

says

hatthe

cavewasnot

excavated

by

the

fostermother

f

Hakusiri,

ut

by

the

grand-daughter

f

Hakusiri.

This ncreaseshe

time

span

between

CaveNineteen

of

Krisna

ndCave

Eighteen

by

two more

generations.

Using

Indraji's

datesand

taking

wenty-five

ears

asthe

mean or

a

generation,

we have

70

B.C.

for

Hakusiri

minus

ifty

which

gives

z

B.C. for

Cave

Eighteen.)

Oncemore

he ack

of

consensus n the

nterpretation

f

an

nscription

educes

ts

usefulness

as a tool for

determining

even a

relative

chronology.

Thus

the

style

of

the

decoration

of the

cave

itself

compared

to the

style

of

others

at

Nisik

and

elsewhere

must

be

the

criterion to

determine a

proper

sequence.

66

Ibid., p.

590,

n.

3.-

67

Senart,

op.cit.,

p. 91.

68

Liiders,

EI, X,

Appendix

numbers

I141-1143, pp.

I28-129.

69

Ibid.,

number

1141

is

the same as

Senart's.

70o

takarni

1-98

B.C.;

Simuka-1i 30

B.C.;

Krina-i

io

B.C.;

Satasiri-9o

B.C.;

and

Hakusiri-70

B.C.

Indraji,

op.cit.,

p.

I64.

71 Gopalachari,

op.cit.,

p.

38.

72

Ibid.;

Rapson's

Purdnic

ist

of the Andhra

Kings

does not show a

Pironstantu

n

the

Vdyu,

but

a

PArenotsatga

ppears

in

the

Matsya,

Brahmdinda, isnu

and

Bhdgavata

ists.,

op.cit.,

pp.

lxvi and

lxvii.

59


13/41

THE

LATER SATAVAHANAS

AND

THE

KSATRAPAS:

There

are at

Ndsik

a total

of

twenty-four

aves.

Of

these,

wenty-three

were

vihdras.

hirteen

of these

monuments ave

inscriptions.

While

none of

the

inscriptions

mentions n

era,

our of

themhavewhatmustbe regnalyears.

The

sequence

f these

inscriptions

n

regnalyears

eems

to

begin

with Cave

Ten and

includeCave

Three,

Cave

Two,

and

an excavationnear

Cave

Twenty-three.

ave

Two's

inscription

was

dated

n the sixth

year

of

Pulumayi,

on

of

Vdsithi;

but nsofar

s ts

style

s

concerned,

t will be

of

littleuse

at thistime

n

helping

o

place

Nineteen

because

he cave

was

apparently

ecut

by

a

Mahdydna

ect

at some

time

much aterthan

the

inscription.

As

for

the

excavation

ext

to

Twenty-three,

ll

thatremainss

the

inscription

ated

in the second

year

of

Pulumdyi.

hus

he

controllingpigraphic

nd

stylistic

materials

emaining

at this site

are

n CaveThree

and

Cave

Ten.

(Related

o these

are

the Kdrle

chaitya

nd a

vihdra

from

Junnar.)

These

two caves

are

closely

linkedto each

other

by

reason

of

inscriptional

evidence.For

clarity's

ake

hese

nscriptions

ill alsobe

quoted

as

they

have

been

ranslated

y

Pandit

Bhagvdnldl

ndraji,

with

the

interpretations

f Senart

and

Btihler

n

those

instances

where here s a divergence f opinion.

Ndsik

Cave

Ten:

Four

of

the

inscriptions

f Cave

Ten

are located

n

the

veranda,

numbers

en

through

thirteen.Number

en is on

the back

wall

of the veranda

elow

the

ceiling;

t

covers

a

space

of

about

40

feet,

and

s

not dated"3.

To

the Perfect

one.

This

dwelling

cave

or

layana

nd

thesetwo

cisterns

were

constructed

n the Trirasmi

hill in the

Govardhana

district]

by

the

charitable

Ushavaddta,

he son

of

Dinika

and on-in-law

f

Kshatrapa

Satrap]

ahapdna

of

the]

Kshahardta

dynasty],

who

[Ushavaddta]

s

the donor

of

three

hundred

housand

cows;

who has

made

gifts

of

gold

and

steps

[reaching

o

the

water]

at the

river

Bdrndsa;

who has fed hundredsof thousandsof

Brahmans

very year;

who has

given

[in marriage]

ight

wives

to

Brahmans

t the

holy

place

Prabhdsa;

ho

has

presented

est-houses

with

fourverandas

nd

pratisrayas

t Bharukachha

Broach],

Dasapura,

Govardhana,

nd

Sorpdraga,

nd

provided

gardens

and

wells;

who

has

made

he

rivers

Ibd,

Pdrid,

Damana,

Tdpi,

Karabend,

nd

Ddhanukd

ordable

by

means

of

boats

ree

of

charge;

who

has

made

sabhds

nd

descents

o thoserivers

on

both

banks;

who

has bestowed

in

gift

thirty-two

thousand

cocoanut

trees in

the

village

of

Ninamgola

to the Charaka

priesthoods

of

Pinditakivada,

Govardhana

Suvarlnamukha,

nd

Rimatirtha

n

Soparaga.

At the command

of

Bhattiraka

[Naha-

pina],

I

[Ushavadita]

went

in

the

rainy

season

to release

the

Uttamabhidra

[who

was] besieged by

the Milavas.

Those

Milavas

fled

away simply

by

the

great

noise

[of

my

coming]

and

I made

them

dependents

of the

Uttamabhidra

Kshatriyas.

Thence

I went to Pushkara

and there

I bathed

and

gave

three

hundredthousand

cows

and

a

village.

He

[Ushavadita]

also

gave

a

field

having

bought

it

through

the

Brahman

Asvi-

bhiiti,

son

of

Varihi,

paying

the

full value

of four thousand

Kirshipanas.

It is in

the

73

It shouldbe

noted

that

the

numbering

f

inscriptions

n

ASWI,

Vol.

IV,

is

not

the

same

as

Indraji's

r

Senart's.

6o


14/41

possession

of his

[Asvibhiti's]

father and

[is

situated]

on the

north-west of

the

city

limits.

From it

will

arise

the

[means

of

supplying]

the chief

[articles

of]

food to

the

mendicant

priesthood

of the four

quarters iving

in

my

dwelling

cave or

layana74.

Senart translated

this

in

essentially

the same

fashion7S.

He did

occasionallychange

the

wording,

but

the

basic

meaning

is

the

same.

Btihler

translated

the

last,

"as the

field

on

the

boundaries

of the town

belonging

to his own

father"76.

Inscription

eleven

is over the

doorway

of

the

left

cell

of

the

veranda.

To the

Perfect

one.

The

meritorious

gift

of a cell

by

Dakshamitrd,

daughter

of

the

Kshatrapa

King

Nahapdna

[of

the]

Kshahardta

[dynasty]

and

wife of

Ushavaddta,

the

son

of Dinika77.

Unless

otherwise

noted,

it

should be assumed that Senart's and

Btihler's

ranslations

were

in

agreement

with

Indraji's.

Inscription

number

twelve is found close to

number eleven

and

below it

on

the

back

wall

of

the veranda.

To the

Perfect one. In the

year

42,

in the month of

Vaisdkha,

Ushavaddta,

he

son-in-law

of

Kshatrapa

Nahapana

[of the]

Kshahardta

[dynasty]

and

son

of

Dinika

gave

this

dwelling

cave to the

assemblage

of the four

quarters,

and

he

also

gave

three

thousand

(3000)

Kdrshipanas

as

permanent capital

to

the

assemblage

of

the

four

quarters,

which

[Kdrshdpanas]

re or the

price

of

clothes

and

kusanasor

those

who

live

in this

dwelling

ave.These

Kdrshapanas

avebeenentrustedo

the

guilds

iving

in

Govardhana,

000ooo

ith one

guild

of

weavers

[yielding]

nterest

one

hundred

padikas,

nd iooo withanotherweaver

guild [yielding]

nterest

eventy-five

adikas.

These

kdrshdpanas

renot to be

given

back;

heir

nterest s to be

enjoyed.

Of

these

[Kdrshdpanas]

rom the

two

thousand

or

clothes,

yielding

one

hundred

padikas

interest,

a cloth for the

rainy

reason

(sic) [season]

s

to be

given

to

each

of

the

twenty

mendicants

living

in

my

dwelling

cave

during

he

rainy

eason;

and

[from]

the thousand

ielding

eventy-fivepadikas

nterest

is

to

be

given]

he

price

of

kusana.

[Also]

eight

thousand

ocoanut

palms

[have

been]

given

in

the

village

of

Chikhala-

padra

n

the

Kdpura

istrict.

All

this

has

beenrelated efore he

council

of

merchants;

and

t has

been

engraved

n the

doorway

ront and

speaks

[my]

work78.

Again

what he

[I]

gave

[had

resolved to

give] formerly

in

the

41st

year

on

the

fifteenth

[day]

of the

bright

half of

Kirtika,

this former

gift

has been

settled on

the

venerable

gods

and

Brahmans

on the

fifteenth

[of Kirtik?]

in

the

45th

year. [This

gift

is]

seventy

thousand

KMrshipanas,

he

value of

two

thousand

suvarnasounting

thirty-five

kdrshdpanas

or

one

suvarna.

[This

inscription]

sets

forth

[my]

work

[standing]on the front of the doorway79.

74

Indraji,

op.cit., pp.

571-572.

7s

Op.

cit.,

p. 79.

76

Buiihler,

ASWI,

IV

(1883),

p.100.

77

Indraji,

op.cit.,p.573.

78

Biihler's

translation

op.cit.,

p. 103 stops

at this

point.

In

a

footnote he said he

was

"unable

to make out

the

second

postscript"

but that

"it

contains another

date,

'the

year

45',

and

appears

to

record

a

large

donation

of

70,000

kirshipanas

made to

gods

and

Brahmanas".

79

Indraji,

op.cit.,pp.

574-575.

61


15/41

Senart's

ranslationhad the

following

variations:

... stems

of cocoanut

trees;

and

all this has

been

proclaimed

[and]

registered

at the

town's

hall,

at the

record

office,

according

o

custom.

Again

the

donation

previously

made

by

the same

in

the

year41,

on

the

15th

of the

bright

half of

Kdrttika,has

in

the

year

45,

on the

15th

... been

settled

on the

...

[This

is

registered]

at the record

office

according

to

custom80.

Inscription

numberthirteen

which is found

over the

doorway

of the cell to the

right

of

the

veranda

s

the same

as number eleven. Senartmade no variation

n

the

meaning

of this

inscrip-

tion.

Two

other

inscriptions

were noted

by Indraji

n

the

court

of this

cave,

numbersfourteen

and

fifteen.

Number

fourteen is

badly

worn

by

the

weather,

and

gives

therefore

a

very

in-

complete

record of

Usavaddta's

gifts

and deeds.

Among

the names of

places

mentioned

is

Ujeniya

(Ujjain)81.

Inscription

number fifteen

is

in

the

ninth

year

of the

King

of

the Abhira

Isvarasena

and

reads as follows:

To the Perfect one.

On

the thirteenth

day

of the fourth

fortnight

of summer

n

the

year

nine of the

King

the Abhira

Isvarasena,

on of Abhira

Sivadatta

and son

of

Mddhari

[the

Queen];

on

the

aforesaid

day

a

permanent

capital

for the welfare

and

happiness

of

all

beings, by

the female

worshipper

Vishnudattd,

a

Sakanikd,

daughter

of

Sakdgnivarman,

wife of

Ganapaka

Rebhila

and

mother

of

Ganapaka

Visvavarman,

or medicine for

the

sick

among

the

assemblage

of

mendicants rom

the four

quarters, iving

in the

Trirasmi

mountain

monastery,

was

deposited

with

the

present

and future

[come

and

to

come]

guilds residing

in...

Among

them

iooo1000

rshdpanas

have been

placed

in

the

hands

of

the Kularika

or

weaver

guild;

two

(2)

thousand

with the

Odayantrika

guild;

five

hundred

with the ...

guild;

... hundreds with the oilmen guild; these

Kdrshapanas8z.

Even

though

these

inscriptions

designate

the

donor

of the

cave as the son-in-lawof Naha-

pana

n

what must be

the

forty-first, orty-second,

and

forty-fifthyears

of

Nahapdna's

eign,

no

era

s

cited.

Thus

the

question

of

first

importance

s what

relationship

do these

years

bear

to the

Christian

era?

For the

moment,

the

arguments

of

Rapson, Spink,

Gopalachari,

etc.

which

put

them

in the

Saka

era and date

Nahapdna

about

A.D.

124,

will be set

aside83.

Later

it

will

be

shown

that the

Saka

era cannot

apply

to the dates of

Nahapina.

Aside

from the

inscriptions

at

Nisik

which

mention

Nahapina,

his name also

appears

at

Karle,

Junnar,

on

coins,

and in the

Periplus

of

the

Erythrean

Sea. A discussion

of the latter and its

dates and

relationship

to

this

problem

may

provide

some

dating

boundaries

or

Nahapina84.

80so

enart,op.cit.,p. 83.

z81

ndraji,

op.cit.,

p. 578.

8z

Ibid., p.

580.

83

Rapson, op.cit.; Spink, op.

cit.;

and

Gopalachari,

op.

cit.

84

J.W.McCrindle, IA,

VIII

(1879), o107-151;

W.H.Schoff,

The

Periplus

of

the

Erythraean

Sea

(New

York:

Longmans,

Green

and

Co.,

1912);

M.Reinaud,

"On

the

Periplus

of

the

Erythrean

Sea", IA,

VIII

(1879),

330-338;

J.

A.

B.Palmer,

"The Identification

of

Ptolemy's

Dounga", JRAS

(1946), pp.

165-173; J.

Pirenne,

"Un

Probl6me-clef

pour

la Chrono-

logie

de l'Orient:

La

Date du

P'riple

de la

Mer

Erythree",

JA,

CCXLIX

(1961),

441-459; P.H.L.Eggermont,

"The

Date

of

the

Periplus

Maris

Erythraei",

G.L.Adhya

and

N.K.

Wagle, "Summary

of Discussions at

the

Conference",

62


16/41

This

document

by

an

anonymous,

eafaring

merchant

rovides

nformation bout

trade,

ports

of

call,

andrulers

n India

during

what

s

generally

ssumedo

be)

the

lasthalfof

the

first

century

A.D. In McCrindle'sranslation

he date was

given

as

falling

betweenA.D.

80

and

8985.

He

believed

t

was

written

before

Ptolemy's

eography,

nd

after

he

workof

Pliny,

becausePtolemy's escriptionf thegeography f Indiabeyond heGangeswas moreaccurate.

He

placed

t

post-Pliny

because

Pliny

speaks

of these trade

routes,

between

Egypt

and

India,

as

if

they

were

recently pened.

The writerof the

Periplus

mplies

hey

hadbeen nuse for

some

time.

Ptolemy

s

dated

n the

early

second

century

A.D.

(ca.

130-140)

while

Pliny

died in

A.D.

79.

However,

Wilfred

Schoff

disagreed

with

this

dating,

and

preferred

A.D.

60

for the

writing

of

the

Periplus86.

One of his

key

reasons or

placing

t

before

Pliny

was

Pliny's

brief

mention,

almost

n

passing,

of the

discovery

made

by

Hippalus.

Hippalus

had

discovered hat

sea

travel

was

more

rapidduring

he

monsoon

season.The authorof

the

Periplus

aid,

"from

that imeuntilnow

voyages

couldbe made

directly

cross

he ocean

by

monsoon".

Schoff

ook

this

to

indicate

a

close

relationship

n

time to

the

discovery

of

Hippalus,

which

he

placed

shortly

after

A.D.

41

87.

In

contrast

o

these

two

scholars,

M.Reinaud

suggested

hat,

n

fact,

the authorof the Peripluss more accuraten his geographic escription f the coastof India

than s

Ptolemy,

and hereforewould

appear

o be later.Hedid admit hat

t

was

quitepossible

that

the

Periplus

as

originally

written

n the

first

century

A.D.,

and

then

underwent

arious

re-editings

ntil

t

reached

ts

final orm

about

A.D.

246-24788.

Given

the

Periplus'

eferences

o the

political

ituation

n Indiaat that

time,

the

latter

date

seems

unlikely.

n

section

38,

the

authorof the

Periplus

mentions

he

Scythian

eacoast t or

near he

mouth

of the

Indus

Riverand

ts

capital

f

Minnagara

hich

was

apparently

ubject

o

frequent

nvasions

by

Parthian

rinces89.

The

name

Minnagara

s

anIndian

erm

meaning

ity

of the

invaders.)90

urther n in section

47,

theauthor

notes

the

very

warlike nland

nationof

the

"Bactrians".

ntil

about

145

B.C. the

Kingdom

of Bactria adbeen

ruled

by

Macedonians

and Greeks.

Then

t

wasinvadedand

conquered

y

a

nomadic ribe rom the

western

borders

of China, he Ta

Yfieh-chihg'.

y

aboutA.D. 45 the

Ytiieh-chih

ad

again

become

aggressive,

and

under he rule of

KujulaKadphises

ad

begun

to

expand

beyond

he

bordersof

Bactria

southwest

nto Parthia

nd

southeast owardKabul.

t

appears

hat

Kujula's

uccessor

eached

Taxila9z.

This

expansion

n

the middle of

the

first

century

A.D.

by

the

"Bactrians"

ould

account or the

Periplus'

eferences

o

difficulties

n

Scythia

nd

suggest

hat he

Periplus,

t

the

earliest,

woulddateafterA.D.

45.

Papers

on the Date

of

Kaniska,editor,

A. L.

Basham,

(Leiden,

E.J.

Brill,

1968)

94-96,

405.

Eggermont

suggested

a

date

for the

Periplus

of A.D.

30.

His

arguments

for the

early writing

of

this document

were based on

supposed

clarifications

of

the date and

identity

of

certain

Arabian

rulers

by J.Ryckmans

in

1953. Dr.Maricq

indicated

that Arab

sources

were

not in full

agreement,

and

that

Dr.

J.

Pirenne had

worked out

a

different

chronology

for this

area,

for

which

see

above.

8s

Op.cit., p.

io8.

86

Op.

cit.,

pp.

7"ff.

87

In the reign of EmperorClaudius(A.D. 41), a Ceylonese embassycameto Rome, and the discovery by Hippalus must

have been

soon

after.

J.W.McCrindle,

Ancient India as

Described

n

Classical

Literature

Westminster,

19o01);

Pliny,

Natural

History,

VI,

24;

Schoff,

op.cit.,

p.

8.

88

Reinaud,

op.cit., p. 331.

89

Schoff,

op.cit.,

pp.

8,

37.

90

Ibid., p. 8, I8o.

9'

Ibid.,

pp.

184ff.;

H.Raychaudhuri,

PHAI

(Calcutta:

University

of

Calcutta,

1953),

422-463.

92

Ibid.,

pp.460-461;

S.Chattopadhyaya,

Early

History

of

North

India...

(Calcutta:

Progressive Publs.,

1958),

pp.64-65;

S.Konow,

CII,

II

(Calcutta:

Government

of

India,

1929),

pp.lxivff.

63


17/41

The

comment

n the

powerful

Bactrian ation

might

also serveas a

terminus

post

quem

or

the

Periplus

nd

Nahapina,

or nthe

subsequent

astward

xpansion

f the

Yieh-chih

Kusana)

into

Central

Asia

they

seem

o havecome

nto conflictwith

the

Chinese

Han

General

Pan

Chao

about

A.D.

90

and

according

o the

Chinese

were

defeated93.

ince he authorof the

Periplus

wasaware f thepoor rade onditionso and romChina, snotedbelow, tispossiblehewould

also

have

earned

f

any

such

oss

of faceon the

part

of

the

Bactrians. hus

t

is

probable

hat

the

Periplus

aswritten

before

A.D.

90.

The

chief

historical

upport

or

the

activitiesof the Ta

Ytieh-chih

Kusina)

omes from

Chinese

ources.

The

earliest

f these s

the

Shih

chi

by

Ssu-ma

Ch'ien9,

which

covers

he

period

up

to

about

99

B.C.;

next the

Ch'ien

Han

shu,

Annals

of

the

First Han

Dynasty;

nd then

the

Hou

Han

shu,

Annals

f

theLater

Han

Dynasty.

he former

appears

o

cover

the

period

up

to

A.D.

24

and

thelatter

rom

about

A.D.

25

to A.D.

12

5

95s.

Further

upport

or an

early

date or the

Periplus

omes romthe

apparent

ower

exercised

by

Kaniska.

Once

Kaniska

ucceeded

o the

Kusina

hrone,

hat

most

powerful

of

kings

seems

to

have

controlled

y

Satraps96

he area

tretching

rom

Kutch o

at

least

Mathurd.

his would

refutethe contention n the

Periplus

hat Kathiawarwas unsettledand

subject

o constant

quarrels

f

"Parthian

rinces".

Even

if the

finalredaction

f the

Periplus

oes

date

rom the

third

century

A.D.,

it

is

sug-

gested

hat

the

principle

hanges

n

it

wouldconcern

geography

nd

not

the

political

limate.

Beyond

his,

in

section

64,

the author

of the

Periplus

mentioned

he state

of

"Ts'in" o

which

few

travelled97.

owever,

Pan

Chao

opened

the

silk

routes

to ChinabetweenA.D.

73

and

A.D.

94

and

such

a statement

would

have

been

unlikely

f

tradehadbeen established nd

the

nomadic

ribes

subdued.

n

section

48,

of the

Periplus,

Ozene,

modern

Ujjain,

he

Avantiof

early

iterature,

s

called

aformer98apital.

Thus,

f

the

theory

hat

Nahapdna

receded

Castana

and

Rudraddman

s

accepted,

he

Periplus

mustbe

placed

at

a

date

beyond

he

accepted

ule

of

Castana,

.D.

130

at

Ozene

or be

placed

n the first

century

A.D.

beforeCastana

s

saidto

be

ruling

n Ozene.

Ptolemy's

Geography

allsOzene hecapital f Tiastaneswho is identified

with

Castanaw9.)

n

examining

hese

statements

ontained

n the

Periplus

nd

attempting

o

synchronize

hem

with

other

sources,

t

appears

bvious

thata date

n the latter

part

of the

first

century

A.D.

suggests

tself

over

thatof

later

dates.

Schoff's

ublished

ate or the

Periplus

was

A.D.

6oI0oo.

incent

Smith,

n a

footnote

i0o

said

hat

Schoff

hadwritten o him

privately

o

indicate

he

date

of A.D.

8o

was

now

preferable

oz.

How

does

this

affect

he

date

of

ahap-na?

Insection

1

of

the

Periplus

he

author

describes

0s

Chattopadhyaya,

op.cit.,

p.78;

Schoff,

op.cit., pp.

I86-187.

94

F.Hirth,

JAOS,

XXXVII, Chapter 123 (1917), pp.

89ff.

05

J.Wylie,

JAI,

III

(1874),

pp.401

ff.,

X

(i

88i),

pp.

20off.;

Konow,

op.

cit.,

pp.lxxi-lxxii;

E.G.Pulleyblank,

"Chinese

Evidence for the Date of Kaniska", in Basham, op.cit., pp.247-258.

96

J.M.Rosenfield,

The

Dynastic

Arts

of

the

Kusbans

Berkeley: University

of California

Press,

1967),

p.

122,

notes

i,

z,

3,

does

not

accept

Satrapal

rule

under

the

Kudnas.

97

Schoff,

op.cit.,

p.

Ii.

98

My

italics.

99

R.C.Majumdar,

The Classical

Accounts

f

India

(Calcutta:

Firma

K.L.Mukhopadhyay,

1960),

p.373.

100

Op.cit.,

p.

15.

101o

.A.

Smith,

EHI

(2d

ed.;

Oxford:

Clarendon

Press,

1908),

p.245.

102

McCrindle,

op.cit.,

pp.

107-15 1-.

64


18/41

the Gulf of Barake103

and its

relationship

o

"Barugaza

[Broach]

and the mainlandof

Ariake,

a district

which forms the

frontier of the

kingdom

of

Mombaros

Nambanus,

Nahapdna)

nd all

of India". It has

already

been noted

in

inscription

a chronology of indian sculpture the sātavāhana chronology at nāsik

Documents