We learn incidentally that besides the regular Egyptian trade

Barygaza had commercial relations with Mouza in Arabia (chapter 21)

with the East African coast (chapter 14) and with Apologos (Obollah)

at the head of the Persian Gulf and with Omana on its eastern shore

(chapter 36). The imports of Barygaza were wine, bronze, tin and lead,

coral and gold stone (topaz ?), cloth of all sorts, variegated sashes

(like the horrible Berlin wool comforters of modern days), storax,

sweet clover, white glass, gum sandarac, stibium for the eyes, and

gold and silver coin, and unguents. Besides, there were imported for

the king costly silver plate, musical instruments (musical boxes are

still favoured by Indian royalty), handsome girls for the harem (these

are the famous Yavanî handmaids of the Indian drama), high-class wine,

apparel and choice unguents, a list which shows that these monarchs

lived in considerable luxury. The exports of Barygaza were spikenard,

costus, bdellium, ivory, onyxes, porcelain, box-thorn, cottons,

silk, silk thread, long pepper (chillies), and other wares from the

coast ports.

From Barygaza our author rightly says (chapter 50) that the

coast trends southward and the country is called Dakhinabadês

(Dakshinâpatha): much of the inland country is waste and infested

by wild beasts, while populous tribes inhabit other regions as far

as the Ganges. The chief towns in Dakhinabadês (chapter 51) are

Paithana (Paithan) twenty days journey south of Barygaza and Tagara

(Dhârur) a very large city ten days east of Paithana. From Paithana

come onyxes, and from Tagara cottons muslins and other local wares

from the (east) coast.

The smaller ports south of Barygaza are Akabarou (perhaps the Khabirun

of Mahomedan writers and the modern Kâvêrî the river of Nâusâri)

Souppara (Supârâ near Bassein) and Kalliena, which was made a mart by

the elder Saraganês, but much injured when Sandanês became its master,

for from his time Greek vessels visiting the port are sent under

guard to Barygaza. This interesting statement is one of the clearest

indications of the date of the Periplus. As Bhândârkar has shown,

the elder Saraganês implies also a younger, who can be no other than

Yajñasrî Sâtakarni (A.D. 140), and the Periplus must be later than

his time. The Sandanês of the text must have been a ruler of Gujarát

and may be identified with the Kshatrapa Sanghadâman (A.D. 224).

South of Kalliena (chapter 53) were Sêmylla (Chaul) Mandagora

(Mandangad) Palaipatmai (Pâl near Mahâd) Melizeigara (probably

Janjîra) and Byzantion (Chiplun). The words which follow probably

give another name of Byzantion "which was formerly also called

Turannosboas," the name Toparon being a misunderstanding (Müller,

Geogr. Gr. Min. I. 296). South of this are the islands of Sêsekreienai

(Burnt Islands), Aigidioí (Angediva), Kaineitai (Island of St. George)

near the Khersonêsos (Goa), and Leukê (Laccadives ?) all pirate

haunts. Next comes Limyrikê (the Tamil country) the first marts

of which are Naoura (Cannanor or Tellichery, rather than Honávar,

which is too far north) and Tyndis (Kadalundi near Bepur) and south

of these Muziris (Kranganur) and Nelkynda (Kallada). Tyndis and

Muziris were subject to Kêprobotras (Keralaputra that is the Cera

king) and Nelkynda to Pandion (the Pândya king of Madura). Muziris

was a very prosperous mart trading with Ariakê (North Konkan) as

well as Egypt. Nelkynda was up a river 120 stadia from the sea,

ships taking in cargo at the village of Bekarê at the mouth of the

river. Our author gives an interesting account of the trade at these

ports and further south as well as on the east coast, but we are not

concerned with this part of his work.

[Markianos.] Markianos of Hîrakleia about the year 400 A.D. is the

leading geographer of the period following Ptolemy, but his work

consisted chiefly in corrections of Ptolemy's distances taken from an

obscure geographer named Prôtagoras. He adds no new facts to Ptolemy's

account of western India.

[Stephanos.] Stephanos of Byzantium wrote about 450 A.D. (or at

any rate later than Markianos, whom he quotes) a huge geographical

dictionary of which we have an epitome by one Hermolaos. The Indian

names he gives are chiefly taken from Hekataios, Arrianos, and

especially from a poem called Bassarika on the exploits of Dionysos,

by a certain Dionysos. But his geography is far from accurate: he

calls Barakê (Dvârakâ) an island, and Barygaza (Broach) a city,

of Gedrôsia. Among the cities he names are Argantê (quoted from

Hekataios), Barygaza (Broach), Boukephala (Jalâlpur), Byzantion

(Chiplun), Gêreia, Gorgippia, Darsania famous for woven cloths,

Dionysopolis (Nysa ?), Kathia (Multân ?), Kaspapyros and Kaspeiros

(Kasmîr), Margana, Massaka (in Swât), Nysa, Palimbothra (Pâtaliputra),

Panaioura near the Indus, Patala (thirty-five miles south-east of

Haidarâbâd, Sindh), Rhodoê, Rhôganê, Rhôn in Gandarikê, Saneia,

Sesindion, Sinda on the great gulf (perhaps Ptolemy's Asinda,

Vadnagar), Sôlimna, and Taxila. He also names a number of tribes,

of whom none but the Orbitai (Makrân) the Pandai (Pândya) Bôlingæ

(Bhâulingi Sâlvas) and possibly the Salangoi (Sâlankâyana) belong to

the western coast.

[Kosmas.] Kosmas Indikopleustes, shipman and monk, who wrote his

Topographia Christiana between A.D. 530 and 550, is the last of the

ancient writers who shows independent knowledge of India. He says that

Sindu (Sindh), is where India begins, the Indus being the boundary

between it and Persia. The chief ports of India are Sindu (Debal),

which exports musk and nard: Orrhotha (Surâshtra that is Verâval)

which had a king of its own: Kalliana (Kalyân) a great port exporting

brass, and sîsam (blackwood) logs and cloth having a king of its own

and a community of Christians under a Persian bishop: Sibor which

also had a king of its own and therefore cannot be Supârâ, which is

too close to Kalliana, but must be Goa, the Sindabur of the Arabs:

Parti, Mangaruth (Mangalor), Salopatana, Nalopatana, and Pudopatana

which are the five marts of Malê the pepper country (Malabâr), where

also there are many Christians. Five days' sail south of Malê lay

Sielediba or Taprobanê (Ceylon), divided into two kingdoms in one

of which is found the hyacinth-stone. The island has many temples,

and a church of Persian Christians, and is much resorted to by ships

from India Persia and Ethiopia dealing in silk, aloewood, cloves,

sandalwood, &c. On the east coast of India is Marallo (Morava opposite

Ceylon) whence conch-shells are exported: Then Kaber (Kaveripatam or

Pegu. Yule's Cathay Introd. page clxxviii.) which exports Alabandinum;

further on is the clove country and furthest of all Tzinista (China)

which produces the silk. In India further up the country, that is

further north, are the White Ounoi or Hûnas who have a king named

Gollas (Mihirakula of inscriptions) who goes forth to war with 1000

elephants and many horsemen and tyrannises over India, exacting tribute

from the people. His army is said to be so vast as once to have drunk

dry the ditch surrounding a besieged city and marched in dryshod.

In his book XI. Kosmas gives some account of the wild beasts of India,

but this part of his work does not require notice here.

This is the last glimpse we get of India before the Arabs cut off the

old line of communication with the Empire by the conquest of Egypt

(A.D. 641-2).

NOTES

[1] Secretary's Letter 4223 to the Revenue Commissioner dated 30th

December 1843. Revenue Volume 1854 of 1843.

[2] Rája Tarangini (Calc. Edition), V. 150, 155; Cunningham's

Archæological Survey, II. 8. An earlier but vaguer reference occurs

about the end of the sixth century in Bána's Sríharshacharita, p. 274,

quoted in Ep. Ind. I. 67ff, where Prabhákaravardhana of Thánesar the

father of the great Sri Harsha is said to have waged war with several

races of whom the Gurjjaras are one.

[3] Beal's Buddhist Records of the Western World, I. 165 note 1.

[4] Cunningham's Archæological Survey, II. 71.

[5] Beal's Buddhist Records, II. 270.

[6] This identification was first made by the late Col. J. W. Watson,

I.S.C. Ind. Ant. VI. 63. Bhinmál or Bhilmál also called Srímál,

is an old town about fifty miles west of Abu, north latitude 25°

4' east longitude 71° 14'. General Cunningham (Ancient Geography

of India, 313) and Professor Beal (Buddhist Records, II. 270)

identify Pi-lo-mo-lo with Bálmer or Bádamera (north latitude 71° 10'

east longitude 20° 0') in the Jodhpur State of West Rájputána. This

identification is unsatisfactory. Bálmer is a small town on the slope

of a hill in an arid tract with no vestige of antiquity. Hiuen Tsiang

notes that the produce of the soil and the manners of the people of

Pi-lo-mo-lo resemble those of Suráshtra. This description is unsuited

to so arid a tract as surrounds Bálmer; it would apply well to the

fertile neighbourhood of Bhilmál or Bhinmál. Since it is closely

associated with Juzr that is Gurjjara the Al Bailáiman of the Arabs

(A.D. 750, Elliot's History, I. 442) may be Bhilmál. A Jain writer

(Ind. Ant. XIX. 233) mentions Bhilmál as the seat of king Bhímasena and

as connected with the origin of the Gadhia coinage. The date Bhinmál

in a M.S. of A.D. 906 (Ditto, page 35) suggests it was then a seat

of learning under the Gurjjaras. The prince of Srímál is mentioned

(Rás Málá, I. 58) as accompanying Múla Rájá Solankhi (A.D. 942-997)

in an expedition against Sorath. Al Biruni (A.D. 1030, Sachau's Edn.,

I. 153, 267) refers to Bhillamála between Multán and Anhilaváda. As

late as A.D. 1611 Nicholas Ufflet, an English traveller from Agra to

Ahmadádád (Kerr's Voyages, VIII. 301) notices "Beelmahl as having

an ancient wall 24 kos (36 miles) round with many fine tanks going

to ruin." The important sub-divisions of upper class Gujarát Hindus

who take their name from it show Srímál to have been a great centre

of population.

[7] Indian Antiquary, XIII. 70-81. Bühler (Ind. Ant. VII. 62)

identifies Nandipuri with a suburb of Broach.

[8] Bombay Gazetteer, Násik, page 604. Bombay Arch. Survey Sep. Number

X. 38.

[9] Among Deccan Kunbi surnames are Jádhav, Chuhán, Nikumbha, Parmár,

Selár, Solké. Cf. Bombay Gazetteer, XXIV. 65 note 2, 414.

[10] Though the identification of the Valabhis as Gurjjaras may not

be certain, in inscriptions noted below both the Chávadás and the

Solankis are called Gurjjara kings. The Gurjjara origin of either or

of both these dynasties may be questioned. The name Gurjjara kings may

imply no more than that they ruled the Gurjjara country. At the same

time it was under the Chávadás that Gujarát got its name. Though to

Al Biruni (A.D. 1020) Gujarát still meant part of Rájputána, between

A.D. 750 and 950 the name Gurjjaras' land passed as far south as the

territory connected with Anhilváda and Vadnagara that is probably as

far as the Mahi. As a Rástrakuta copperplate of A.D. 888 (S. 810)

(Ind. Ant. XIII. 69) brings the Konkan as far north as Variáv on

the Tápti the extension of the name Gujarát to Láta south of the

Mahi seems to have taken place under Musalmán rule. This southern

application is still somewhat incomplete. Even now the people of

Surat both Hindus and Musalmáns when they visit Pattan (Anhilváda)

and Ahmadabad speak of going to Gujarát, and the Ahmadábád section

of the Nágar Bráhmans still call their Surat caste-brethren by the

name of Kunkanás that is of the Konkan.

[11] See Nagarakhanda (Junágadh Edition), 13, 32, 35, 185, 289,

332, 542.

[12] The Alina grants (Indian Antiquary, VII. 73, 77) dated Valabhi

330 and 337 (A.D. 649-656), are both to the same donee who in the

A.D. 649 grant is described as originally of Ánarttapura and in the

A.D. 656 grant as originally of Ánandapura.

[13] Girnára-Kalpa, Atthi Surathta vesaé Ujjinto náma pavvao rammo. In

the Suraththa district is a lovely mountain named Ujjinto (Girnár).

[14] Hamilton and Falconer's Strabo, II. 252-253; Pliny's Natural

History, VI. 20.

[15] Bertius' Ptolemy, VII. 1; McCrindle's Periplus, 113. The Periplus

details regarding Indo-Skythia, Surastrene, and Ujjain are in agreement

with the late date (A.D. 247) which Reinaud (Indian Antiquary of

Dec. 1879 pp. 330-338) and Burnell (S. Ind. Pal. 47 note 3) assign

to its author.

[16] Hiuen Tsiang's Valabhi kingdom was probably the same as the

modern Gohilváda, which Jinaprabhásuri in his Satruñjaya-kalpa calls

the Valláka-Visaa.

[17] Bertius' Ptolemy, VII. 1.

[18] Vátsyáyana Sutra, Chap. II.

[19] Arch. Sur. of Western India, IV. 127. The Mandasor inscription

(A.D. 437-38) mentions silk weavers from Látavishaya. Fleet's

Corpus Ins. Ind. III. 80. The writer (Ditto, 84) describes Láta as

green-hilled, pleasing with choice flower-burdened trees, with temples

viháras and assembly halls of the gods.

[20] Ind. Ant. XIII. 157, 158, 163, 180, 188, 196, 199, 204.

[21] Elliot's History, I. 378.

[22] Compare Lassen in Ind. Ant. XIV. 325.

[23] The Vishnu Purána (Ansa iv. Chap. i. Verse 19 to Chap. ii. Verse

2) gives the longest account of the legend. The Bhágavata Purána

(Skanda ix. Chap. iii. Verse 16-36) gives almost the same account. The

Matsya Purána (Chap. xii. Verse 22-24) dismisses the story in two

verses. See also Harivansa, X.

[24] Compare Mahábh. II. 13, 594ff. Jarásandha's sisters Asti and

Prápti were married to Kansa.

[25] Harivansa, XXXV.-CXII.

[26] Mahábhárata Ádiparva, chaps. 218-221.

[27] Mahábhárata Vanaparva, Chap. xiv.-xxii. Skanda x. Mrittikávatí the

capital of Sálva cannot be identified. The name of the country sounds

like Svabhra in Rudradáman's Girnár inscription, which is apparently

part of Charotar or South Ahmadabad. A trace of the old word perhaps

remains in the river Sábhramati the modern Sábarmati. The fact that

Sálva passed from Mrittikávatí along the sea shore would seem to

show that part of the seaboard south of the Mahi was included in

Sálva's territory. Dr. Bühler (Ind. Ant. VII. 263) described Pandit

Bhagvánlál's reading of Svabhra as a bold conjecture. A further

examination of the original convinced the Pandit that Svabhra was

the right reading.

[28] The following is the legend of Krishna's iron flail. Certain

Yádava youths hoping to raise a laugh at the expense of Visvámitra and

other sages who had come to Dwáriká presented to them Sámba Krishna's

son dressed as a woman big with child. The lads asked the sages to

foretell to what the woman would give birth. The sages replied:

'The woman will give birth to an iron rod which will destroy the

Yádava race.' Obedient to the sage's prophecy Sámba produced an iron

rod. To avoid the ill effects of the prophecy king Ugrasena had the

rod ground to powder and cast the powder into the sea. The powder

grew into the grass called eraka Typha elephantina. It was this grass

which Krishna plucked in his rage and which in his hands turned into

an iron flail. This eraka grass grows freely near the mouth of the

Hiranya river of Prabhás.

[29] This suggests that as in early times the Great Ran was hard to

cross the way from Káthiáváda to Indraprastha or Delhi was by Kachch

and Sindh and from Sindh by Multán and the Lower Panjáb. According

to the Bhágavata Purána Krishna took the same route when he first

came from Indraprastha to Dwáriká. On the other hand these details

may support the view that the head-quarters of the historic Krishna

were in the Panjáb.

[30] So far as is known neither Gujarát nor Káthiáváda contains any

record older than the Girnár rock inscription of about B.C. 240: The

Great Kshatrapa Rudra Dáman's (A.D. 139) inscription on the same rock

has a reference to the Maurya Rája Chandragupta about B.C. 300. No

local sign of Krishna or of his Yádavas remains.

In the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, XX. XXI. and

XXII. Mr. Hewitt has recently attempted to trace the history of

Western India back to B.C. 3000 perhaps to as early as B.C. 6000. The

evidence which makes so far-reaching a past probable is the discovery

of Indian indigo and muslin in Egyptian tombs of about B.C. 1700

(J. R. A. S. XX. 206); and the proof that a trade in teak and

in Sindhu or Indian muslins existed between Western India and

the Euphrates mouth as far back as B.C. 3000 or even B.C. 4000

(J. R. A. S. XX. 336, 337 and XXI. 204). According to Mr. Hewitt

the evidence of the Hindu calendar carries the historical past of

India into still remoter ages. The moon mansions and certain other

details of the Hindu calendar seem to point to the Euphrates valley

as the home of Hindu lunar astronomy. As in the Euphrates valley

inscriptions of the Semitic king Sargon of Sippara prove that in

B.C. 3750 moon-worship was already antiquated (J. R. A. S. XXI. 325),

and as the precession of the equinoxes points to about B.C. 4700 as the

date of the introduction of the sun zodiac (Sayce's Hibbert Lectures,

398) the system of lunar mansions and months, if it came from the

Euphrates valley, must have reached India before B.C. 4700. The

trade records of the black-headed perhaps Dravidian-speaking

Sumris of the Euphrates mouth prove so close relations with the

peninsula of Sinai and Egypt as to make a similar connection with

Western India probable as far back as B.C. 6000. (Compare Sayce's

Hibbert Lectures, 33: J. R. A. S. XXI. 326.) Of the races of whose

presence in Gujarát and the neighbourhood Mr. Hewitt finds traces

the earliest is the same black-headed moon-worshipping Sumri

(Ditto). Next from Susiana in south-east Persia, the possessors

of a lunar-solar calendar and therefore not later than B.C. 4700

(J. R. A. S. XXI. 325, 327, 330), the trading Sus or Saus, in Hindu

books known as Suvarnas, entered India by way of Baluchistán and

settled at Pátala in South Sindh. (J. R. A. S. XXI. 209.) With

or soon after the Sus came from the north the cattle-herding

sun-worshipping Sakas (J. R. A. S. XXII. 332). The Sus and Sakas

passed south and together settled in Suráshtra and West Gujarát. At a

date which partly from evidence connected with the early Vedic hymns

(J. R. A. S. XXII. 466) partly from the early Babylonian use of the

Sanskrit Sindhu for India (J. R. A. S. XXI. 309), Mr. Hewitt holds

cannot be later than B.C. 3000 northern Áryas entered Gujarát and

mixing with the Sus and Sakas as ascetics traders and soldiers carried

the use of Sanskrit southwards. (J. R. A. S. XX. 343.) Of other races

who held sway in Gujarát the earliest, perhaps about B.C. 2000 since

their power was shattered by Parasuráma long before Mahábhárata times

(J. R. A. S. XXI. 209-266), were the snake-worshipping perhaps Accadian

(Ditto, 265) Haihayas now represented by the Gonds and the Haihayas'

vassals the Vaidarbhas (Ditto, 209) a connection which is supported by

trustworthy Central Indian Uraon or Gond tradition that they once held

Gujarát (Elliott's Races, N. W. P., I. 154). Next to the Haihayas

and like them earlier than the Mahábhárata (say B.C. 1500-2000)

Mr. Hewitt would place the widespread un-Aryan Bhárats or Bhárgavs

(J. R. A. S. XXI. 279-282, 286) the conquerors of the Haihayas (Ditto,

288). In early Mahábhárata times (say between B.C. 1000 and 800, Ditto

197 and 209) the Bhárats were overcome by the very mixed race of the

Bhojas and of Krishna's followers the Vrishnis (Ditto, 270). Perhaps

about the same time the chariot-driving Gandharvas of Cutch (Ditto,

273) joined the Sus and Sakas, together passed east to Kosala beyond

Benares, and were there established in strength at the time of

Gautama Buddha (B.C. 530) (Ditto). To the later Mahábhárata times,

perhaps about B.C. 400 (Ditto, 197-271), Mr. Hewitt would assign the

entrance into Gujarát of the Ábhíras or Ahirs whom he identifies with

the northern or Skythian Abárs. Mr. Hewitt finds the following places

in Gujarát associated with those early races. Pátála in South Sindh

he (J. R. A. S. XXI. 209) considers the head-quarters of the Sus and

Sakas. Another Su capital Prágjyotisha which is generally allotted to

Bengal he would (XXI. 206) identify with Broach. With the Vaidarbhas

the vassals of the Haihayas he associates Surparika, that is Sopára

near Bassein, which he identifies (Ditto, 206) with the modern Surat

on the Tapti. He connects (Ditto, 266) the Baroda river Visvámitra

and Vaidurga the hill Pávágad with the same tribe. He finds a trace

of the Bhárats in Baroda and in Bharati an old name of the river

Mahi (Ditto, 286) and of the same race under their name Bhárgav in

Broach (Ditto, 289). The traditional connection of the Bhojas with

Dwárka is well established. Finally Kárpásika a Mahábhárata name

for the shore of the Gulf of Cambay (Ditto, 209) may be connected

with Kárván on the Narbada about twenty miles above Broach one of

the holiest Shaiv places in India. Though objection may be taken to

certain of Mr. Hewitt's identifications of Gujarát places, and also

to the extreme antiquity he would assign to the trade between India

and the west and to the introduction of the system of lunar mansions,

his comparison of sacred Hindu books with the calendar and ritual of

early Babylonia is of much interest.

[31] Mahábhárata Anusásanaparvan 2158-9 mentions Látas among Kshatriya

tribes who have become outcastes from seeing no Bráhmans. Again,

Chap. VII. 72. ib. couples (J. Bl. As. Soc. VI. (1) 387) thievish

Báhikas and robber Suráshtras. Compare Vishnu Purána, II. 37,

where the Yavanas are placed to the west of Bháratavarsha and also

J. R. A. S. (N. S.) IV. 468; and Brockhaus' Prabodha Chandrodaya,

87. The sloka referred to in the text runs: He who goes to Anga,

Vanga, Kalinga, Sauráshtra, or Magadha unless it be for a pilgrimage

deserves to go through a fresh purification.

[32] Turnour's Maháwanso, 71.

[33] Bombay Branch Royal Asiatic Society Journal, 1891, page 47.

[34] It is interesting to note that Chandragupta married a Vaisya

lady. Similarly while at Sánchi on his way to Ujjain Asoka married

Deví, the daughter of a Setthi, Turnour's Maháwanso, 76; Cunningham's

Bhilsa Topes, 95.

[35] Probably from some mistake of the graver's the text of the

inscription ashokasy te yavanarájena yields no meaning. Some word

for governor or officer is apparently meant.

[36] Hemachandra's Parisishta Parva. Merutunga's Vichárasreni.

[37] The text is 'Kunálasûnustrikhandabharatádhipah Paramárhanto

Anáryadeseshvapi Pravarttitasramana-vihárah Samprati Mahárája

Sohábhavat' meaning 'He was the great king Samprati son of Kunála,

sovereign of India of three continents, the great saint who had

started monasteries for Jain priests even in non-Aryan countries.'

[38] McCrindle's Periplus, 115. The author of the Periplus calls the

capital of Surastrene Minnagara. Pandit Bhagvánlál believed Minnagara

to be a miswriting of Girinagara the form used for Girnár both in

Rudradáman's (A.D. 150) rock inscription at Girnár (Fleet's Corpus

Ins. Ind. III. 57) and by Varáha-Mihira (A.D. 570) (Brihat-Samhitá,

XIV. 11). The mention of a Minagara in Ptolemy inland from Sorath and

Monoglossum or Mangrul suggests that either Girnár or Junágadh was

also known as Minnagara either after the Mins or after Men that is

Menander. At the same time it is possible that Ptolemy's Agrinagara

though much out of place may be Girinagara and that Ptolemy's Minagara

in the direction of Ujjain may be Mandasor.

[39] Justin's date is probably about A.D. 250. His work is a summary

of the History of Trogus Pompeius about A.D. 1. Watson's Justin, 277;

Wilson's Ariana Antiqua, 231.

[40] Hamilton and Falconer's Strabo, II. 252-253.

[41] These small local coins which were found in Hálár Gondal were

presented to the Bombay Asiatic Society by the Political Agent of

Káthiáwár and are in the Society's cabinet. Dr. Bhagvánlál found the

two elephant coins in Junágadh.

[42] Wilson's Ariana Antiqua, 266. Gardner's British Museum Catalogue,

26, brings Eucratides to after B.C. 162.

[43] See above page 15.

[44] McCrindle's Periplus, 121.

[45] The Bombay Asiatic Society possesses some specimens of these

coins of bad workmanship found near Broach with the legend incorrect,

probably struck by some local governor of Menander. Two were also

found in Junágadh.

[46] McCrindle's Periplus, 115.

[47] Numismatic Chronicle (New Series), X. 80; Wilson's Ariana

Antiqua, 288.

[48] Numismatic Chronicle (New Series), X, 80.

[49] Wilson's Ariana Antiqua, Plate XXII. Number 41. Gardner's British

Museum Catalogue, Plate XI. Number 8.

[50] Wilson's Ariana Antiqua, Plate XXII. Number 66, shows one variety

of this monogram.

[51] These coins are said to have been found in 1882 by a cultivator

in an earthen pot. Two of them were taken for Pandit Bhagvánlál and

one for Mr. Vajeshankar Gaurishankar Naib Diván of Bhávnagar. The

rest disappeared.

[52] Ariana Antiqua, Plate XXII. Number 47.

[53] Numismatic Chronicle (New Series), X. 86.

[54] Ariana Antiqua, 288; Gardner and Poole's Catalogue of Indian

Coins, xxxiii.

[55] Wilson (Ariana Antiqua, 332-334) identifies the coins marked

Basileus Basileon Soter Megas with a king or dynasty of Indian

extraction who reigned between Azes and Kadphises (B.C. 50-25),

chiefly in the Panjáb. Gardner (British Museum Catalogue, 47) says:

The Nameless king is probably cotemporary with Abdagases (A.D. 30-50):

he may have been a member of the Kadphises dynasty. Cunningham (Ancient

Geography, 245) places the coins of the tribal Yaudheyas in the first

century A.D. The remark of Prinsep (Jour. Bengal Soc. VI. 2, 973) that

in the Behat group of Buddhist coins some with Baktro-Páli legends have

the name Yaudheya in the margin seems to support the suggestion in the

text. But the marked difference between the Stag coins of the Yaudheyas

(Thomas' Prinsep, I. Plate V.) and the Nameless king's coins (Gardner,

Plate XIV. 1-6) tells strongly against the proposed identification. Of

the Yaudheyas details are given below.

[56] Journal Bengal Asiatic Society (1835), 684; (1837), 351; (1838),

346; Thomas' Prinsep's Indian Antiquities, I. 425-435, II. 84-93;

Thomas in Journal Royal Asiatic Society (Old Series), XII. 1-72;

Wilson's Ariana Antiqua, 405-413; Journal B. B. R. A. S. VI. 377,

VII. 392; Burgess' Archæological Report of Káthiáwár and Kachh, 18-72;

Journal B. B. R. A. S. XII. (Proceedings), XXIII.; Indian Antiquary,

VI. 43, X. 221-227.

The dynasty of the Kshatrapas or Mahákshatrapas of Sauráshtra

was known to Prinsep (J. R. A. S. Bl. VII.-1. (1837),

351) to Thomas (J. R. A. S. F. S. XII. 1-78), and to Newton

(Jl. B. B. R. A. S. IX. 1-19) as the Sah or Sâh kings. More recently,

from the fact that the names of some of them end in Sena or army, the

Kshatrapas have been called the Sena kings. The origin of the title

Sah is the ending siha, that is simha lion, which belongs to the names

of several of the kings. Síha has been read either sáh or sena because

of the practice of omitting from the die vowels which would fall on or

above the top line of the legend and also of omitting the short vowel

i with the following anusvára. Sáh is therefore a true reading of the

writing on certain of the coins. That the form Sáh on these coins is

not the correct form has been ascertained from stone inscriptions in

which freedom from crowding makes possible the complete cutting of the

above-line marks. In stone inscriptions the ending is síha lion. See

Fleet's Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, III. 36 note 1. Mr. Fleet

(Ditto) seems to suggest that with the proof of the incorrectness of

the reading Sáh the evidence that the Kshatrapas were of Indo-Skythian

origin ceases. This does not seem to follow. In addition to the

Parthian title Kshatrapa, their northern coinage, and the use of the

Saka (A.D. 78) era, now accepted as the accession of the great Kushán

Kanishka, the evidence in the text shows that the line of Káthiáváda

Kshatrapas starts from the foreigner Chashtana (A.D. 130) whose

predecessor Nahápana (A.D. 120) and his Saka son-in-law Ushavadatta

are noted in Násik inscriptions (Násik Gazetteer, 538 and 621) as

leaders of Sakas, Palhavas, and Yavanas. Further as the limits of

Ptolemy's (A.D. 150) Indo-Skythia (McCrindle, 136) agree very closely

with the limits of the dominions of the then ruling Mahákshatrapa

Rudradáman (A.D. 150) it follows that Ptolemy or his informer believed

Rudradáman to be an Indo-Skythian. There therefore seems no reasonable

doubt that the Kshatrapas were foreigners. According to Cunningham

(Num. Chron. VIII. 231) they were Sakas who entered Gujarát from

Sindh. The fact that the Kushán era (A.D. 78) was not adopted by

the first two of the Western Kshatrapas, Chashtana and Jayadáman,

supports the view that they belonged to a wave of northerners earlier

than the Kushán wave.

[57] The Taxila plate in Journal R. A. S. (New Series), IV. 487;

the Baktro-Páli on Nahapána's coins also gives the form Chhatrapa.

[58] Chhatrava appears in an unpublished Kshatrapa inscription from

Mathurá formerly (1888) in Pandit Bhagvánlál's possession.

[59] Khatapa appears in the inscription of Nahapána's minister at

Junnar (Bombay Gazetteer, XVIII. Pt. III. 167) and in some coins of

the Northern Kshatrapa kings Pagamasha, Rájavula, and Sudása found near

Mathurá. Prinsep's Indian Antiquities, II. Pl. XLIV. Figs. 12, 20, 21.

[60] Kshatrampâtîti Kshatrapah.

[61] Thomas' Prinsep, II. 63 and 64.

[62] Malaya or Malava, Pallava, Ábhíra, Meva or Meda, and Mihira

or Mehr appear to be the leading warlike tribes who came to India

under these chiefs. These tribes formed the Kshatras whose lords or

Kshatrapas these chiefs were.

[63] The explanation of the word Kshatrapa started by Prinsep and

accepted by Pandit Bhagvánlál is of doubtful accuracy. The title is

well known in Greek literature in the form satrapês, and in the form

Kshatrapávan occurs twice (B.C. 520) in connection with the governors

of Baktria and Arachosia in the great Behistan inscription of Darius

(Rawlinson's Herodotus, I. 329; Spiegel's Altpersische Keilinschriften,

24-26). The meaning of Kshatrapávan in old Persian is not "protector

of the Kshatra race" but "protector of the kingdom," for the word

kshatram occurs in the inscriptions of the Achæmenidæ with the meaning

of "kingship" or "kingdom" (Spiegel, Altpersische Keilinschriften,

215). As is well known Satrap was the official title of the ruler

of a Persian province. That the name continued in use with the same

meaning under the Greek kings of Baktria (B.C. 250-100) is known from

Strabo, who says (XI. 11) "the Greeks who held Baktria divided it

into satrapies (satrapeias) of which Aspionus and Touriva were taken

from Eukratides (B.C. 180) by the Parthians." It is to be presumed

that the Baktro-Grecians introduced the same arrangement into the

provinces which they conquered in India. The earliest occurrence of the

title in its Indian form is on the coins of a Rajabula or Ranjabola

(Gardner, B. M. Cat. 67), who in his Greek legend makes use of the

title "King of kings," and in his Indian legend calls himself "The

unconquered Chhatrapa." His adoption for the reverse of his coins

of the Athene Promachos type of Menander and Apollodotus Philopator

connects Rajabula in time with those kings (B.C. 126-100) and we know

from an inscription (Cunningham Arch. Rep. XX. 48) that he reigned at

Mathurá. He was probably a provincial governor who became independent

about B.C. 100 when the Greek kingdom broke up. The above facts go to

show that Kshatrapa was originally a Persian title which was adopted

by the Greeks and continued in use among their successors: that it

originally denoted a provincial governor; but that, when the Greek

kingdom broke up and their provincial chiefs became independent, it

continued in use as a royal title. That after the Christian era, even

in Parthia, the title Satrapes does not necessarily imply subjection to

a suzerain is proved by the use of the phrase satrapês tôn satrapôn

Satrap of Satraps, with the sense of King of Kings in Gotarzes'

Behistan inscription of A.D. 50. See Rawlinson's Sixth Monarchy,

88 n. 2 and 260 n. 1.--(A. M. T. J.)

The Pandit's identification of the Malavas or Malayas with a northern

or Skythian tribe is in agreement with Alberuni (A.D. 1015), who,

on the authority of the Báj Purána (Sachau's Text, chap. 29 page

150-155) groups as northern tribes the Pallavas, Sakas, Mallas, and

Gurjars. In spite of this authority it seems better to identify the

Mallas, Malavas, or Malayas with Alexander the Great's (B.C. 325)

Malloi of Multán (compare McCrindle's Alexander's Invasion of India,

Note P). At the same time (Rockhill's Life of Buddha, 132, 133, 137)

the importance of the Mallas in Vaisáli (between Patná and Tirhút)

during the lifetime of Sakya Muni (B.C. 580) favours the view that

several distinct tribes have borne the same or nearly the same name.

[64] Patika was apparently the son of the Liako Kujulako of the Taxila

plate. Dowson in Jour. R. A. S. New Series. IV. 497 mistranslates

the inscription and fails to make out the name Patika.

[65] Compare Specht. Jour. Asiatique. 1883. t. II. 325. According

to Chinese writers about A.D. 20 Yen-kao-tchin-tai or Kadphises

II. conquered India (Thientchou) and there established generals who

governed in the name of the Yuechi.

[66] Pandit Bhagvánlál found two of his copper coins at Mandasor

in 1884.

[67] This is a bad specimen with the legend dim and worn.

[68] Some coins of Apollodotus have on the reverse Apollo with his

arrow; others have Athene Promachos with the thunderbolt.

[69] Bom. Gaz. XVI. 571ff.

[70] A well known Sanskrit saying is shvashurakhyátodhamádhama:

A man known through his father-in-law is the vilest of the vile.

[71] Cunningham's Arch. Sur. III. Plate 13. Inscriptions 2 and 3.

[72] The author's only reason for supposing that two eras began between

A.D. 70 and 80 seems to be the fact that the Javanese Saka era begins

A.D. 74, while the Indian Saka era begins A.D. 78. It appears, however,

from Lassen's Ind. Alt. II. 1040 note 1, that the Javanese Saka era

begins either in A.D. 74 or in A.D. 78. The author's own authority,

Dr. Burnell (S. Ind. Pal. 72) while saying that the Javanese Saka era

dates from A.D. 74, gives A.D. 80 as the epoch of the Saka era of the

neighbouring island of Bali, thus supporting Raffle's explanation

(Java, II. 68) that the difference is due to the introduction

into Java of the Muhammadan mode of reckoning during the past 300

years. The Javanese epoch of A.D. 74 cannot therefore be treated

as an authority for assuming a genuine Indian era with this initial

date. The era of Kanishka was used continuously down to its year 281

(Fergusson Hist. of Ind. Architecture, 740) and after that date we have

numerous instances of the use of the Sakanripakála or Sakakála down

to the familiar Saka of the present day. It seems much more likely

that the parent of the modern Saka era was that of Kanishka, which

remained in use for nearly three centuries, than that of Nahapána,

who so far as we know left no son, and whose era (if he founded one)

probably expired when the Kshaharáta power was destroyed by the

Ándhrabhrityas in the first half of the second century A.D. We must

therefore assume A.D. 78 to be the epoch of Kanishka's era. There

remains the question whether Nahapána dates by Kanishka's era,

or uses his own regnal years. There is nothing improbable in the

latter supposition, and we are not forced to suppose that Nahapána

was a feudatory of the Kushán kings. It has been shown above that the

use of the title Kshatrapa does not necessarily imply a relation of

inferiority. On the other hand (pace Oldenburg in Ind. Ant. X. 213)

the later Kshatrapas certainly seem to have used Kanishka's era: and

Nahapána and the Kushán dynasty seem to have been of the same race:

for Heraus, who was certainly a Kushán, apparently calls himself Saka

on his coins (Gardner B. M. Cat. xlvii.); and it is highly probable

that Nahapána, like his son-in-law Ushavadáta, was a Saka. Further,

the fact that Nahapána does not call himself Mahárája but Rája goes

to show that he was not a paramount sovereign.--(A. M. T. J.)

[73] Jour. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 378; Ind. Ant. XV. 198, 201, XIII. 126;

Arch. Sur. X. 33.

[74] Cunningham's Arch. Sur. XIII. 162. Cf. Kielhorn in

Ind. Ant. XIX. 20ff.

[75] Cunningham's Arch. Sur. X. 33-34. Numerous Western India

inscriptions prove that ya and va are often intermixed in Prákrit.

[76] Vide Telang's Mudrárákshasa, 204. Mr. Telang gives several

readings the best of which mean either the king of the Málaya country

or the king of the Málaya tribe.

[77] Macmurdo (1818) notices the democratic constitution of the

Káthis. Trans. Bom. Lit. Soc. I. 274.

[78] Compare Fleet's Corpus Ins. Ind. III. 87, 152, 158 from the

(supremacy of) the tribal constitution of the Málavas. Prof. Kielhorn

has however shown that the words of the inscription do not necessarily

mean this. Ind. Ant. XIX. 56.

[79] Inscription 10 lines 3-4. Bom. Gaz. XVI. 572.

[80] Details are given below under the Guptas.

[81] Burgess' Archæological Report of Káthiáwár and Cutch, 55;

Numismata Orientalia, I. Pl. II. Fig. 8.

[82] The meaning of this symbol has not yet been made out. It is

very old. We first find it on the punched coins of Málwa and Gujarát

(regarded as the oldest coinage in India) without the serpentine line

below, which seems to show that this line does not form part of the

original symbol and has a distinct meaning.

[83] Compare Wilson's Ariana Antiqua, Plate XV. Fig. 26-27.

[84] Cave Temple Inscriptions, Bombay Archæological Survey, Extra

Number (1881), 58.

[85] Ariana Antiqua, Plate XV. Fig. 29. Some imaginary animals are

shown under the serpentine line.

[86] Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. XIII. 303.

[87] The variations noted in the text seem examples of the law that

the later religion reads its own new meaning into early luck signs.

[88] This letter ysa in both is curiously formed and never used

in Sanskrit. But it is clear and can be read without any doubt as

ysa. Pandit Bhagvánlál thought that it was probably meant to stand

as a new-coined letter to represent the Greek Z which has nothing

corresponding to it in Sanskrit. The same curiously formed letter

appears in the third syllable in the coin of the fourth Kshatrapa

king Dámajadasri.

[89] The text of the inscription is rúdradámno varshe that is in

the year of Rudradáman. That this phrase means 'in the reign of' is

shown by the Gunda inscription of Rudradáman's son Rudrasimha, which

has rúdrasimhasya varshe tryuttarashate that is in the hundred and

third year of Rudrasimha. Clearly a regnal year cannot be meant as no

reign could last over 103 years. So with the year 72 in Rudradáman's

inscription. The same style of writing appears in the inscriptions at

Mathurá of Huvishka and Vasudeva which say 'year ---- of Huvishka'

and 'year ---- of Vasudeva' though it is known that the era is of

Kanishka. In all these cases what is meant is 'the dynastic or era

year ---- in the reign of ----'.

[90] See below page 34.

[91] McCrindle's Ptolemy, 155.

[92] See above page 29.

[93] See above page 25.

[94] Of these coins Dr. Bhagvánlál kept one in his own collection. He

sent the other to General Cunningham. The Pandit found the copper

coin in Amreli in 1863 and gave it to Dr. Bhau Dáji.

[95] Except that the ja is much clearer the Nágarí legend in the

silver coin obtained for General Cunningham is equally bad, and the

Baktro-Páli legend is wanting.

[96] Ind. Ant. X. 157.

[97] Journal B. B. R. A. Soc. VIII. 234-5 and Ind. Ant. XII. 32ff.

[98] Dr. Burgess' Archæological Report of Káthiáwár and Cutch, 140.

[99] The explanation of the reduction of Jayadáman's rank is probably

to be found in the Násik Inscription (No. 26) of Gautamíputra Sátakarni

who claims to have conquered Suráshtra, Kukura (in Rájputána), Anúpa,

Vidarbha (Berár), Ákara, and Avanti (Ujain). (A. M. T. J.)

[100] See below page 39.

[101] Several small mixed metal coins weighing from 3 to 10 grains

with on the obverse an elephant in some and a bull in others and on

the reverse the usual arched Kshatrapa symbol have been found in Málwa

and Káthiáváda. The symbols show them to be of the lowest Kshatrapa

currency. Several of them bear dates from which it is possible as

in the case of Rudrasimha's and Rudrasena's coins to infer to what

Kshatrapa they belonged. Lead coins have also been found at Amreli

in Káthiáváda. They are square and have a bull on the obverse and on

the reverse the usual arched Kshatrapa symbol with underneath it the

date 184.

[102] Compare however Weber, Hist. of Indian Lit. 187-8.

[103] Jour. B. B. R. A. S. VII. 114.

[104] Ind. Ant. II. 156; V. 50, 154 &c.

[105] Ákarávanti that is Ákara and Avanti are two names which

are always found together. Cf. Gotamíputra's Násik inscription

(No. 26). Avanti is well known as being the name of the part of Málwa

which contains Ujjain. Ákara is probably the modern province of Bhilsa

whose capital was Vidisa the modern deserted city of Besnagar. Instead

of Ákarávanti Brihatsamhitá mentions Ákaravenávantaka of which the

third name Vená Pandit Bhagvánlál took to be the country about the

Sagara zilla containing the old town of Eran, near which still flows a

river called Vená. The adjectives east and west are used respectively

as referring to Ákara which is East Málwa and Avanti which is West

Málwa. Compare Indian Antiquary, VII. 259; Bombay Gazetteer, XVI. 631.

[106] Anúpa is a common noun literally meaning well-watered. The

absence of the term nîvrit or 'country' which is in general superadded

to it shows that Anúpa is here used as a proper noun, meaning the

Anúpa country. Dr. Bhagvánlál was unable to identify Anúpa. He took

it to be the name of some well-watered tract near Gujarát.

[107] See above page 10 note 1. The greater part of North Gujarát

was probably included in Svabhra.

[108] Maru is the well known name of Márwár.

[109] Kachchha is the flourishing state still known by the name

of Cutch.

[110] Sindhu Sauvíra like Ákarávanti are two names usually found

together. Sindhu is the modern Sind and Sauvíra may have been part of

Upper Sind, the capital of which is mentioned as Dáttámitrî. Alberuni

(I. 300) defines Sauvíra as including Multán and Jahráwár.

[111] Nothing is known about Kukura and it cannot be identified. It

was probably part of East Rájputána.

[112] Aparánta meaning the Western End is the western seaboard from

the Mahi in the north to Goa in the south. Ind. Ant. VII. 259. The

portion of Aparánta actually subject to Rudradáman must have been

the country between the Mahi and the Damanganga as at this time the

North Konkan was subject to the Ándhras.

[113] Nisháda cannot be identified. As the term Nisháda is generally

used to mean Bhils and other wild tribes, its mention with Aparánta

suggests the wild country that includes Bánsda, Dharampur, and

north-east Thána.

[114] Grammar, V. iii. 117.

[115] Compare Gardner and Poole's Catalogue, Pl. XXVI. Fig. 2 &c.

[116] Another variety of their brass coins was found at Behat

near Saháranpur. Compare Thomas' Prinsep's Indian Antiquities,

I. Pl. IV. Figs. 11B 12B and Pl. XIX. Figs. 5, 6, 9. General

Cunningham, in his recent work on The Coins of Ancient India, 75ff,

describes three chief types, the Behat coins being the earliest

and belonging to the first century B.C., the second type which is

that described above is assigned to about A.D. 300, and the third

type, with a six-headed figure on the obverse, is placed a little

later. General Cunningham's identification of the Yaudheyas with the

Johiya Rájputs of the lower Sutlej, seems certain, Rudradáman would

then have "uprooted" them when he acquired the province of Sauvíra.

[117] Mr. Fleet notices a later inscription of a Mahárája Mahásenápati

"who has been set over" the 'Yaudheya gana or tribe' in the fort of

Byána in Bharatpur. Ind. Ant. XIV. 8, Corp. Insc. Ind. III. 251ff. The

Yaudheyas are also named among the tribes which submitted to

Samudragupta. See Corp. Insc. Ind. III. 8.

[118] Huvishka's latest inscription bears date 45 that is A.D. 123

(Cunningham's Arch. Sur. III. Pl. XV. Number 8).

[119] Ind. Ant. VII. 262.

[120] McCrindle's Ptolemy, 152.

[121] McCrindle's Ptolemy, 175.

[122] Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. XV. 306.

[123] Jour. B. B. R. A. Soc. XV. 313, 314. See also Ind. Ant. XII 272,

where Bühler suggests that the queen was a daughter of Rudradáman,

and traces the syllables Rudradá ... in the Kanheri inscription.

[124] See above page 34.

[125] It seems doubtful whether the Pandit's estimate of fifteen years

might not with advantage be increased. As his father's reign was so

short Rudradáman probably succeeded when still young. The abundance of

his coins points to a long reign and the scarcity of the coins both

of his son Dámázada and of his grandson Jívadáman imply that neither

of his successors reigned more than a few years. Jivadáman's earliest

date is A.D. 178 (S. 100). If five years are allowed to Jivadáman's

father the end of Rudradáman's reign would be A.D. 173 (S. 95) that

is a reign of thirty years, no excessive term for a king who began

to rule at a comparatively early age.--(A. M. T. J.)

[126] Two specimens of his coins were obtained by Mr. Vajeshankar

Gavrishankar Náib Díwán of Bhávnagar, from Káthiáváda, one of which

he presented to the Pandit and lent the other for the purpose of

description. The legend in both was legible but doubtful. A recent

find in Káthiáváda supplied four new specimens, two of them very good.

[127] Apparently a mistake for rudradámnah putrasa.

[128] As in the case of Zamotika the father of Chashtana, the variation

ysa for ja proves that at first ysa and afterwards ja was used to

represent the Greek Z.

[129] The oldest of the four was found by the Pandit for Dr. Bhau Dáji

in Amreli. A fair copy of it is given in a plate which accompanied

Mr. Justice Newton's paper in Jour. B. B. R. A. S. IX. page 1ff. Plate

I. Fig. 6. Mr. Newton read the father's name in the legend Dámasrí,

but it is Dámájadasrí, the die having missed the letters ja and da

though space is left for them. This is coin A of the description. Of

the remaining three, B was lent to the Pandit from his collection by

Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar. C and D were in the Pandit's collection.

[130] This inscription which has now been placed for safe custody in

the temple of Dwárkánáth in Jámnagar, has been published by Dr. Bühler

in Ind. Ant. X. 157-158, from a transcript by Áchárya Vallabji

Haridatta. Dr. Bhagvánlál held that the date is 103 tryuttarasate

not 102 dvyuttarasate as read by Dr. Bühler; that the name of the

father of the donor is Bápaka and not Báhaka; and that the name of

the nakshatra or constellation is Rohiní not Sravana.

[131] Several coins have the same date.

[132] One is in the collection of the B. B. R. A. Society, the other

belonged to the Pandit.

[133] An unpublished inscription found in 1865 by Mr. Bhagvánlál

Sampatrám.

[134] The top of the third numeral is broken. It may be 7 but is more

likely to be 6.

[135] The Jasdan inscription has been published by Dr. Bháu Dáji,

J. B. R. A. S. VIII. 234ff, and by Dr. Hoernle, Ind. Ant. XII. 32ff.

[136] Five have recently been identified in the collection of

Dr. Gerson daCunha.

[137] His name, the fact that he regained the title Mahákshatrapa,

and his date about A.D. 225 suggest that Sanghadáman (A.D. 222-226)

may be the Sandanes whom the Periplus (McCrindle, 128) describes as

taking the regular mart Kalyán near Bombay from Saraganes, that is

the Dakhan Sátakarnis, and, to prevent it again becoming a place of

trade, forbidding all Greek ships to visit Kalyán, and sending under

a guard to Broach any Greek ships that even by accident entered its

port. The following reasons seem conclusive against identifying

Sanghadáman with Sandanes: (1) The abbreviation from Sanghadáman

to Sandanes seems excessive in the case of the name of a well known

ruler who lived within thirty years of the probable time (A.D. 247)

when the writer of the Periplus visited Gujarát and the Konkan:

(2) The date of Sanghadáman (A.D. 222-226) is twenty to thirty years

too early for the probable collection of the Periplus details: (3)

Apart from the date of the Periplus the apparent distinction in the

writer's mind between Sandanes' capture of Kalyán and his own time

implies a longer lapse than suits a reign of only four years.

In favour of the Sandanes of the Periplus being a dynastic not

a personal name is its close correspondence both in form and in

geographical position with Ptolemy's (A.D. 150) Sadaneis, who gave

their name, Ariake Sadinôn or the Sadins' Aria, to the North Konkan,

and, according to McCrindle (Ptolemy, 39) in the time of Ptolemy

ruled the prosperous trading communities that occupied the sea coast

to about Semulla or Chaul. The details in the present text show that

some few years before Ptolemy wrote the conquests of Rudradáman had

brought the North Konkan under the Gujarát Kshatrapas. Similarly

shortly before the probable date of the Periplus (A.D. 247) the

fact that Sanghadáman and his successors Dámasena (A.D. 226-236)

and Vijayasena (A.D. 238-249) all used the title Mahákshatrapa makes

their possession of the North Konkan probable. The available details

of the Káthiáváda Kshatrapas therefore confirm the view that the

Sadans of Ptolemy and the Sandanes of the Periplus are the Gujarát

Kshatrapas. The question remains how did the Greeks come to know the

Kshatrapas by the name of Sadan or Sandan. The answer seems to be the

word Sadan or Sandan is the Sanskrit Sádhana which according to Lassen

(McCrindle's Ptolemy, 40) and Williams' Sanskrit Dictionary may mean

agent or representative and may therefore be an accurate rendering

of Kshatrapa in the sense of Viceroy. Wilford (As. Res. IX. 76, 198)

notices that Sanskrit writers give the early English in India the

title Sádhan Engrez. This Wilford would translate Lord but it seems

rather meant for a rendering of the word Factor. Prof. Bhandárkar

(Bom. Gaz. XIII. 418 note 1) notices a tribe mentioned by the

geographer Varáhamihira (A.D. 580) as Sántikas and associated with

the Aparántakas or people of the west coast. He shows how according to

the rules of letter changes the Sanskrit Sántika would in Prákrit be

Sándino. In his opinion it was this form Sandino which was familiar

to Greek merchants and sailors. Prof. Bhandárkar holds that when

(A.D. 100-110) the Kshatrapa Nahapána displaced the Sátaváhanas or

Ándhrabhrityas the Sántikas or Sandino became independent in the North

Konkan and took Kalyán. To make their independence secure against

the Kshatrapas they forbad intercourse between their own territory

and the Dakhan and sent foreign ships to Barygaza. Against this

explanation it is to be urged; (1) That Násik and Junnar inscriptions

show Nahapána supreme in the North Konkan at least up to A.D. 120;

(2) That according to the Periplus the action taken by the Sandans

or Sadans was not against the Kshatrapas but against the Sátakarnis;

(3) That the action was not taken in the time of Nahapána but at a

later time, later not only than the first Gautamíputra the conqueror

of Nahapána or his son-in-law Ushavadáta (A.D. 138), but later than

the second Gautamíputra, who was defeated by the Káthiáváda Kshatrapa

Rudradáman some time before A.D. 150; (4) That if the Sántikas were

solely a North Konkan tribe they would neither wish nor be able to

send foreign ships to Broach. The action described in the Periplus of

refusing to let Greek ships enter Kalyán and of sending all such ships

to Broach was the action of a Gujarát conqueror of Kalyán determined to

make foreign trade centre in his own chief emporium Broach. The only

possible lord of Gujarát either in the second or third century who

can have adopted such a policy was the Kshatrapa of Ujjain in Málwa

and of Minnagara or Junágadh in Káthiáváda, the same ruler, who, to

encourage foreign vessels to visit Broach had (McCrindle's Periplus,

118, 119) stationed native fishermen with well-manned long boats off

the south Káthiáváda coast to meet ships and pilot them through the

tidal and other dangers up the Narbada to Broach. It follows that

the Sandanes of the Periplus and Ptolemy's North Konkan Sádans are

the Gujarát Mahákshatrapas. The correctness of this identification

of Sadan with the Sanskrit Sádhan and the explanation of Sádhan as a

translation of Kshatrapa or representative receive confirmation from

the fact that the account of Kálakáchárya in the Bharaheswara Vrítti

(J. B. B. R. A. S. IX. 141-142), late in date (A.D. 1000-1100) but

with notable details of the Saka or Sáhi invaders, calls the Saka king

Sádhana-Simha. If on this evidence it may be held that the Kshatrapas

were known as Sádhanas, it seems to follow that Sántika the form

used by Varáhamihira (A.D. 505-587) is a conscious and intentional

Sanskritizing of Sádan whose correct form and origin had passed out

of knowledge, a result which would suggest conscious or artificial

Sanskritizing as the explanation of the forms of many Puránic tribal

and place names. A further important result of this inquiry is to show

that the received date of A.D. 70 for the Periplus cannot stand. Now

that the Kanishka era A.D. 78 is admitted to be the era used by the

Kshatrapas both in the Dakhan and in Gujarát it follows that a writer

who knows the elder and the younger Sátakarnis cannot be earlier than

A.D. 150 and from the manner in which he refers to them must almost

certainly be considerably later. This conclusion supports the date

A.D. 247 which on other weighty grounds the French scholar Reinaud

(Ind. Ant. Dec. 1879. pp. 330, 338) has assigned to the Periplus.

[138] The Pandit's coin was obtained by him in 1863

from Amreli in Káthiáváda. A copy of it is given by

Mr. Justice Newton who calls Sanghadáman son of Rudrasimha

(Jour. B. B. R. A. S. IX. Pl. I. Fig. 7). The other specimen is

better preserved.

[139] One of these coins was lent to the Pandit by Mr. Vajeshankar

Gavrishankar.

[140] One specimen in the collection of Mr. Vajeshankar bears date 158.

[141] One of them was lent by Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar.

[142] This name has generally been read Atridáman.

[143] Jour. B. B. R. A. S. VII. 16.

[144] See below Chapter VI. page 57.

[145] Cunningham's Arch. Sur. X. 127; XV. 29-30.

[146] This coin of Rudrasena may have been taken so far from Gujarát

by the Gujarát monk in whose honour the stúpa was built.

[147] Ísvaradatta's name ends in datta as does also that of Sivadatta

the father of king Ísvarasena of the Násik inscription.

[148] Dr. Bhagvánlál's suggestion that Vijayasena (A.D. 238-249)

was defeated by the Ábhír or Ahír king Ísvaradatta who entered

Gujarát from the North Konkan seems open to question. First as

regards the suggestion that Vijayasena was the Kshatrapa whose

power Ísvaradatta overthrew it is to be noticed that though the two

coinless years (A.D. 249-251) between the last coin of Vijayasena

and the earliest coin of Dámájadasrí agree with the recorded length

of Ísvaradatta's supremacy the absence of coins is not in itself

proof of a reverse or loss of Kshatrapa power between the reigns

of Vijayasena and Dámájadasrí. It is true the Pandit considers that

Ísvaradatta's coins closely resemble those of Vijayasena. At the same

time he also (Násik Stat. Acct. 624) thought them very similar to

Víradáman's (A.D. 236-238) coins. Víradáman's date so immediately

precedes Vijayasena's that in many respects their coins must be

closely alike. It is to be noted that A.D. 230-235 the time of rival

Kshatrapas among whom Víradáman was one (especially the time between

A.D. 236 and 238 during which none of the rivals assumed the title

Mahákshatrapa) was suitable to (perhaps was the result of) a successful

invasion by Ísvaradatta, and that this same invasion may have been

the cause of the transfer of the capital, noted in the Periplus

(A.D. 247) as having taken place some years before, from Ozene or

Ujjain to Minnagara or Junágadh (McCrindle, 114, 122). On the other

hand the fact that Vijayasena regained the title of Mahákshatrapa

and handed it to his successor Dámájadasrí III. would seem to shew

that no reverse or humiliation occurred during the coinless years

(A.D. 249-251) between their reigns, a supposition which is supported

by the flourishing state of the kingdom at the time of the Periplus

(A.D. 247) and also by the evidence that both the above Kshatrapas

ruled near Karád in Sátára. At the same time if the difference between

Víradáman's and Vijayasena's coins is sufficient to make it unlikely

that Ísvaradatta's can be copies of Víradáman's it seems possible

that the year of Ísvaradatta's overlordship may be the year A.D. 244

(K. 166) in which Vijayasena's coins bear the title Kshatrapa, and

that the assumption of this lower title in the middle of a reign,

which with this exception throughout claims the title Mahákshatrapa,

may be due to the temporary necessity of acknowledging the supremacy of

Ísvaradatta. With reference to the Pandit's suggestion that Ísvaradatta

was an Ábhíra the fact noted above of a trace of Kshatrapa rule at

Karád thirty-one miles south of Sátára together with the fact that

they held Aparánta or the Konkan makes it probable that they reached

Karád by Chiplún and the Kumbhárli pass. That the Kshatrapas entered

the Dakhan by so southerly a route instead of by some one of the more

central Thána passes, seems to imply the presence of some hostile

power in Násik and Khándesh. This after the close of the second

century A.D. could hardly have been the Ándhras or Sátakarnis. It

may therefore be presumed to have been the Ándhras' successors the

Ábhíras. As regards the third suggestion that Kshatrapa Gujarát was

overrun from the North Konkan it is to be noted that the evidence of

connection between Ísvarasena of the Násik inscription (Cave X. No. 15)

and Ísvaradatta of the coins is limited to a probable nearness in

time and a somewhat slight similarity in name. On the other hand

no inscription or other record points to Ábhíra ascendancy in the

North Konkan or South Gujarát. The presence of an Ábhíra power in

the North Konkan seems inconsistent with Kshatrapa rule at Kalyán and

Karád in the second half of the third century. The position allotted

to Aberia in the Periplus (McCrindle, 113) inland from Surastrene,

apparently in the neighbourhood of Thar and Párkar; the finding of

Ísvaradatta's coins in Káthiáváda (Násik Gazetteer, XIII. 624);

and (perhaps between A.D. 230 and 240) the transfer westwards of

the head-quarters of the Kshatrapa kingdom seem all to point to the

east rather than to the south, as the side from which Ísvaradatta

invaded Gujarát. At the same time the reference during the reign of

Rudrasimha I. (A.D. 181) to the Ábhíra Rudrabhúti who like his father

was Senápati or Commander-in-Chief suggests that Ísvaradatta may

have been not a foreigner but a revolted general. This supposition,

his assumption of the title Mahákshatrapa, and the finding of his

coins only in Káthiáváda to a certain extent confirm.

[149] Cave Temple Inscriptions, Bom. Arch. Sur. Sep. Number XI. page

57ff.

[150] J. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 346.

[151] Epigraphia Indica, II. 19.

[152] Ind. Ant. XIII. 81ff.

[153] Ep. Ind. II. 20.

[154] Ind. Ant. VII. 248ff. Dr. Bhandárkar (Early Hist. of the Deccan,

42 note 7) has given reasons for believing this grant to be a forgery.

[155] Ind. Ant. XVIII. 265ff.

[156] J. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff.; Trans. Vienna Or. Congress, 210ff.

[157] Ind. Ant. XIII. 70ff. and V. 109ff.

[158] Trans. Vienna Or. Congress, 210ff.

[159] Fleet's Kánarese Dynasties, 27.

[160] Fleet's Kánarese Dynasties, 27.

[161] Ind. Ant. XIV. 75 and Jour. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff.

[162] Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 9) and Sir A. Cunningham

(Arch. Sur. IX. 77) agree in fixing A.D. 250 as the initial date

of the Chedi era. Prof. Kielhorn has worked out the available

dates and finds that the first year of the era corresponds to

A.D. 249-50. Ind. Ant. XVII. 215.

[163] Válmíki's Rámáyana, Ganpat Krishnaji's Edition: Raghuvamsa,

IV. 59.

[164] For details see above page 48.

[165] Tripura four miles west of Jabalpur; Kálanjara 140 miles north

of Jabalpur.

[166] That the era used by the Gurjjaras and Chalukyas of Gujarát

was the Chedi era may be regarded as certain since the discovery of

the Sankhedá grant of Nirihullaka (Ep. Ind. II. 21), who speaks of a

certain Sankarana as his overlord. Palæographically this grant belongs

to the sixth century, and Dr. Bühler has suggested that Sankarana is

the Chedi Sankaragana whose son Buddharája was defeated by Mangalísa

some time before A.D. 602 (Ind. Ant. XIX. 16). If this is accepted,

the grant shows that the Chedis or Kalachuris were in power in the

Narbadá valley during the sixth century, which explains the prevalence

of their era in South Gujarát. Chedi rule in the Narbadá valley must

have come to an end about A.D. 580 when Dadda I. established himself at

Broach. It being established that the Kalachuris once ruled in South

Gujarát, there is no great difficulty in the way of identifying the

Traikútakas with them. The two known Traikútaka grants are dated

in the third century of their era, and belong palæographically

to the fifth century A.D. Their era, therefore, like that of the

Kalachuris, begins in the third century A.D.: and it is simpler to

suppose that the two eras were the same than that two different eras,

whose initial points were only a few years apart, were in use in the

same district. Now that the Saka and the Vikrama eras are known to

have had different names at different times, the change in the name

of the era offers no special difficulty. This identification would

carry back Kalachuri rule in South Gujarát to at least A.D. 456-6,

the date of the Párdi grant: and it is worth noting that Varáhamihira

(Br. Samh. XIV. 20) places the Haihayas or Kalachuris in the west

along with the Aparántakas or Konkanis.

Though the name Traikútaka means of Trikúta, the authorities quoted

by Dr. Bhagvánlál do not establish the existence of a city called

Trikúta. They only vouch for a mountain of that name somewhere in the

Western Gháts, and there is no evidence of any special connection

with Junnar. Further, the word Trikútakam seems to mean rock-salt,

not sea-salt, so that there is here no special connection with the

Western coast. Wherever Trikúta may have been, there seems no need

to reject the tradition that connects the rise of the Kalachuris with

their capture of Kálanjara (Cunningham's Arch. Surv. IX. 77ff), as it

is more likely that they advanced from the East down the Narbadá than

that their original seats were on the West Coast, as the Western Indian

inscriptions of the third and fourth centuries contain no reference

either to Traikútakas or to Junnar or other western city as Trikúta.

With reference to the third suggestion that the Traikútakas twice

overthrew the Kshatrapas, under Ísvaradatta in A.D. 248 and under

Rudragana in A.D. 310-320, it is to be noted that there is no evidence

to show that Ísvaradatta was either an Ábhíra or a Traikútaka and that

the identification of his date with A.D. 248-250 seems less probable

than with either A.D. 244 or A.D. 236. (Compare above Footnote page

53). Even if Ísvaradatta's supremacy coincided with A.D. 250 the

initial date of the Traikútaka era, it seems improbable that a king

who reigned only two years and left no successor should have had any

connection with the establishment of an era which is not found in use

till two centuries later. As regards Rudragana it may be admitted that

he belonged to the race or family who weakened Kshatrapa power early

in the fourth century A.D. At the same time there seems no reason to

suppose that Rudragana was a Traikútaka or a Kalachuri except the

fact that his name, like that of Sankaragana, is a compound of the

word gana and a name of Siva; while the irregular posthumous use of

the title Mahákshatrapa among the latest (23rd to 26th) Kshatrapas

favours the view that they remained independent till their overthrow

by the Guptas about A.D. 410. The conclusion seems to be that the

Traikútaka and the Kalachuri eras are the same namely A.D. 248-9:

that this era was introduced into Gujarát by the Traikútakas who

were connected with the Haihayas; and that the introduction of the

era into Gujarát did not take place before the middle of the fifth

century A.D.--(A. M. T. J.)

[167] Váyu Purána, Wilson's Works, IX. 219n.

[168] Vishnu Purána, III. Chapter 10 Verse 9: Burnell's Manu,

20. Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 11 note 1) quotes an instance

of a Bráhman named Brahmagupta.

[169] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 53 line 7.

[170] Compare Skandagupta's Junágadh Inscription line 15,

Ind. Ant. XIV.; Cunningham's Arch. Sur. X. 113; Fleet's

Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 59.

[171] Compare Mr. Fleet's note in Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 8.

[172] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 135. Mr. Fleet believes that

the Lichchhavi family concerned was that of Nepál, and that they

were the real founders of the era used by the Guptas. Dr. Bühler

(Vienna Or. Journal, V. Pt. 3) holds that Chandragupta married into

the Lichchhavi family of Pátaliputra, and became king of that country

in right of his wife. The coins which bear the name of Kumáradeví

are by Mr. Smith (J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 63) and others assigned

to Chandragupta I., reading the reverse legend Lichchhavayah The

Lichchhavis in place of Dr. Bhagvánlál's Lichchhaveyah Daughter's

son of Lichchhavi. On the Kácha coins see below page 62 note 2.

The Lichchhavis claim to be sprung from the solar dynasty. Manu

(Burnell's Manu, 308) describes them as descended from a degraded

Kshatriya. Beal (R. A. S. N. S. XIV. 39) would identify them with an

early wave of the Yuechi or Kusháns; Smith (J. R. A. S. XX. 55 n. 2)

and Hewitt (J. R. A. S. XX. 355-366) take them to be a Kolarian or

local tribe. The fame of the Lichchhavis of Vaísáli or Passalæ between

Patna and Tirhút goes back to the time of Gautama Buddha (B.C. 480) in

whose funeral rites the Lichchhavis and their neighbours and associates

the Mallas took a prominent share (Rockhill's Life of Buddha, 62-63,

145, 203. Compare Legge's Fa Hien, 71-76; Beal's Buddhist Records,

II. 67, 70, 73, 77 and 81 note). According to Buddhist writings the

first king of Thibet (A.D. 50) who was elected by the chiefs of the

South Thibet tribes was a Lichchhavi the son of Prasenadjit of Kosala

(Rockhill's Life of Buddha, 208). Between the seventh and ninth

centuries (A.D. 635-854) a family of Lichchhavis was ruling in Nepal

(Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 134). The earliest historical member of

the Nepál family is Jayadeva I. whose date is supposed to be about

A.D. 330 to 355. Mr. Fleet (Ditto, 135) suggests that Jayadeva's

reign began earlier and may be the epoch from which the Gupta era of

A.D. 318-319 is taken. He holds (Ditto, 136) that in all probability

the so-called Gupta era is a Lichchhavi era.

[173] The figure of the Ganges standing on an alligator with a stalked

lotus in her left hand on the reverse of the gold coins of Samudragupta

the fourth king of the dynasty may be taken to be the Sri or Luck of

the Guptas. Compare Smith's Gupta Coinage, J. Beng. A. S. LIII. Plate

I. Fig. 10. J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 2.

[174] The presence of the two letters ka ca that is ka cha on the

obverse under the arm of the royal figure, has led the late Mr. Thomas,

General Cunningham, and Mr. Smith to suppose that the coins belonged

to Ghatotkacha, the last two letters of the name being the same. This

identification seems improbable. Ghatotkacha was never powerful enough

to have a currency of his own. Sarvarájochchhettá the attribute on

the reverse is one of Samudragupta's epithets, while the figure

of the king on the obverse grasping the standard with the disc,

illustrating the attribute of universal sovereignty, can refer to

none other than Samudragupta the first very powerful king of the

dynasty. Perhaps the Kacha or Kácha on these coins is a pet or child

name of Samudragupta. Mr. Rapson (Numismatic Chron. 3rd Ser. XI. 48ff)

has recently suggested that the Kácha coins belong to an elder brother

and predecessor of Samudragupta. But it seems unlikely that a ruler who

could justly claim the title Destroyer-of-all-kings should be passed

over in silence in the genealogy. Further, as is remarked above, the

title Sarvarájochchhettá belongs in the inscriptions to Samudragupta

alone: and the fact that in his lifetime Samudragupta's father chose

him as successor is against his exclusion from the throne even for

a time.

[175] Smith's Gupta Coinage in J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 10.

[176] Compare Wilson's Ariana Antiqua, Pl. XVIII. Fig. 8, which has

the same legend with me for mama.

[177] Smith J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 11, 12.

[178] Smith J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 4.

[179] Smith J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. Mr. Smith reads

Lichchhavayah (the Lichchhavis) and assigns this type to Chandragupta

I.

[180] Corpus Ins. Ind. III. 1.

[181] Smith J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. I. 5, 6.

[182] Apparently South Kosala, the country about Raipur and

Chhattísgarh.

[183] Fleet reads Mantarája of Kerala.

[184] Fleet divides the words differently and translates "Mahendra

of Pishtapura, Svámidatta of Kottura on the hill."

[185] Fleet reads "Nílarája of Avamukta."

[186] Fleet reads Palakka or Pálakka.

[187] Arch. Surv. II. 310; J. B. A. S. 1865. 115-121.

[188] Samatata is the Ganges delta: Daváka may, as Mr. Fleet suggests,

be Dacca: for Karttrika Mr. Fleet reads Kartripura, otherwise Cuttack

might be intended.

[189] For the Málavas see above page 24. The Arjunáyanas can hardly

be the Kalachuris as Mr. Fleet (C. I. I. III. 10) has suggested, as

Varáha Mihira (Br. S. XIV. 25) places the Arjunáyanas in the north near

Trigarta, and General Cunningham's coin (Coins of Ancient India, 90)

points to the same region. The Yaudheyas lived on the lower Sutlej:

see above page 36. The Mádrakas lived north-east of the Yaudheyas

between the Chenáb and the Sutlej (Cunningham Anc. Geog. 185). The

Ábhíras must be those on the south-east border of Sindh. The Prárjunas

do not appear to be identifiable. A Sanakáníka Mahárája is mentioned

(C. I. I. III. 3) as dedicating an offering at Udayagiri near Bhilsá,

but we have no clue to the situation of his government. The name of

his grandfather, Chhagalaga, has a Turkí look. Káka may be Kákúpur

near Bithúr (Cunningham Anc. Geog. 386). Kharaparika has not been

identified.--(A. M. T. J.)

[190] Mr. Fleet translates "(giving) Garuda-tokens, (surrendering)

the enjoyment of their own territories."

[191] The first three names Devaputra, Sháhi, and Sháhánusháhi,

belong to the Kushán dynasty of Kanishka (A.D. 78). Sháhánusháhi is

the oldest, as it appears on the coins from Kanishka downwards in

the form Sháhanáno Sháho (Stein in Babylonian and Oriental Record,

I. 163). It represents the old Persian title Sháhansháh or king of

kings. Sháhi, answering to the simple Sháh, appears to be first used

alone by Vásudeva (A.D. 128-176). The title of Devaputra occurs first

in the inscriptions of Kanishka. In the present inscription all three

titles seem to denote divisions of the Kushán empire in India. The

title of Sháhi was continued by the Turks (A.D. 600?-900) and Bráhmans

(A.D. 900-1000) of Kábul (Alberuni, II. 10) and by the Sháhis (Elliot,

I. 138) of Alor in Sindh (A.D. 490?-631). Unless it refers to the

last remnants of the Gujarát Mahákshatrapas the word Saka seems to

be used in a vague sense in reference to the non-Indian tribes of the

North-West frontier. The Murundas may be identified with the Murundas

of the Native dictionaries, and hence with the people of Lampáka or

Lamghán twenty miles north-west of Jalálábád. It is notable that in the

fifth century A.D. Jayanátha, Mahárája of Uchchakalpa (not identified)

married a Murundadeví (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 128, 131, 136).

The mention of the king of Simhala and the Island Kings rounds off

the geographical picture. Possibly after the Chinese fashion presents

from these countries may have been magnified into tribute. Or Simhala

may here stand, not for Ceylon, but for one of the many Simhapuras

known to Indian geography. Sihor in Káthiáváda, an old capital,

may possibly be the place referred to. The Island Kings would then

be the chiefs of Cutch and Káthiáváda.--(A. M. T. J.)

[192] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 6.

[193] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 3.

[194] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 5.

[195] Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33) prefers to take Devarája

to be the name of Chandragupta's minister.

[196] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 120.

[197] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 121.

[198] Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introd. 130ff) argues that

the era was borrowed from Nepal after Chandragupta I. married his

Lichchhavi queen. Dr. Bühler thinks there is no evidence of this,

and that the era was started by the Guptas themselves (Vienna

Or. Jl. V. Pt. 3).

[199] The further suggestion may be offered that if as seems probable

Dr. Bhagvánlál is correct in considering Chandragupta II. to be the

founder of the Gupta era this high honour was due not to his conquest

of Málwa but to some success against the Indo-Skythians or Sakas

of the Punjáb. The little more than nominal suzerainty claimed over

the Devputras, Sháhis, and Sháhánusháhis in Chandragupta's father's

inscription shows that when he came to the throne Chandragupta found

the Saka power practically unbroken. The absence of reference to

conquests is no more complete in the case of the Panjáb than it is in

the case of Gujarát or of Káthiáváda which Chandragupta is known to

have added to his dominions. In Káthiáváda, though not in Gujarát,

the evidence from coins is stronger than in the Panjáb. Still

the discovery of Chandragupta's coins (J. R. A. S. XXI. 5 note 1)

raises the presumption of conquests as far north and west as Pánipat

and as Ludhiána (in the heart of the Panjáb). Chandragupta's name

Devarája may, as Pandit Bhagvánlál suggests, be taken from the Saka

title Devaputra. Further, the use of the name Vikramáditya and of

the honorific Srí is in striking agreement with Beruni's statement

(Sachau, II. 6) that the conqueror of the Sakas was named Vikramáditya

and that to the conqueror's name was added the title Srí. Mr. Fleet

(Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 37 note 2) holds it not improbable that either

Chandragupta I. or II. defeated the Indo-Skythians. The fact that

Chandragupta I. was not a ruler of sufficient importance to issue

coins and that even after his son Samudragupta's victories the Sakas

remained practically independent make it almost certain that if any

subjection of the Sakas to the Guptas took place it happened during

the reign of Chandragupta II.

[200] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 10.

[201] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 8, 9, 10 and 11.

[202] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 123.

[203] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 126. That Kumáragupta's two successors,

Skandagupta and Budhagupta, use the same phrase devam jayati makes

the explanation in the text doubtful. As Mr. Smith (Ditto) suggests

devam is probably a mistake for devo, meaning His Majesty. The

legend would then run; Kumaraguptadeva lord of the earth ... is

triumphant. Dr. Bhagvánlál would have preferred devo (see page 70

note 2) but could not neglect the anusrára.--(A. M. T. J.)

[204] Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 13.

[205] Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 53, 55) reads "nítá triyámá"

and translates "a (whole) night was spent." Dr. Bhagvánlál read

"nítás trimásáh."

[206] Mr. Fleet finds that Pushyamitra is the name of a tribe not

of a king. No. VI. of Dr. Bühler's Jain inscriptions from Mathurá

(Ep. Ind. I. 378ff) mentions a Pushyamitriya-kula of the Váranagana,

which is also referred to in Bhadrabáhu's Kalpa-sútra (Jacobi's

Edition, 80), but is there referred to the Chárana-gana, no doubt

a misreading for the Várana of the inscription. Dr. Bühler points

out that Varana is the old name of Bulandshahr in the North-West

Provinces, so that it is there that we must look for the power that

first weakened the Guptas.--(A. M. T. J.)

[207] See V. de St. Martin's Essay, Les Huns Blancs; Specht in Journal

Asiatique Oct.-Dec. 1883 and below page 74.

[208] In Rudradáman's inscription the Palásiní is mentioned, and

also the Suvarnasikatás "and the other rivers," In Skandagupta's

inscription Mr. Fleet translates Sikatávilásiní as an adjective

agreeing with Palásiní.

[209] Remains of the dam were discovered in 1890 by Khán Bahádúr

Ardesir Jamsetji Special Diván of Junágadh. The site is somewhat

nearer Junágadh than Dr. Bhagvánlál supposed. Details are given in

Jour. B. B. R. A. S. XVIII. Number 48 page 47.

[210] The reading devo is to be preferred but the anusvára is clear

both on these coins and on the coins of his father. For these coins

see J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. IV. 4.

[211] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. Pl. IV. 697.

[212] The known dates of Skandagupta are 136 and 137 on his Girnár

inscription, 141 in his pillar inscription at Kahaon in Gorakhpur,

and 146 in his Indor-Khera copperplate. The coin dates given by

General Cunningham are 144, 145, and 149.

[213] But see below page 73.

[214] Dr. Bhagvánlál examined and copied the original of this

inscription. It has since been published as Number 19 in Mr. Fleet's

Corp. Ins. Ind. III.

[215] J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. 134.

[216] It is now known that the main Gupta line continued to rule in

Magadha. See page 73 below.

[217] Published by Mr. Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 36.

[218] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 37.

[219] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 35.

[220] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33.

[221] Fleet Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 20.

[222] On Naragupta see below page 77, and for his coins

J. R. A. S. (N. S.) XXI. note Pl. III. 11.

[223] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 13 lines 10 and 15.

[224] The Pushyamitras seem to have been a long established tribe

like the Yaudheyas (above page 37). During the reign of Kanishka

(A.D. 78-93) Pushyamitras were settled in the neighbourhood of

Bulandshahr and at that time had already given their name to a

Jain sect.

The sense of the inscription is somewhat doubtful. Mr. Fleet

(Corp. Ins. Ind. III. page 62) translates: Whose fame, moreover, even

(his) enemies in the countries of the Mlechchhas ... having their

pride broken down to the very root announce with the words 'Verily

the victory has been achieved by him.' Prof. Peterson understands

the meaning to be that Skandagupta's Indian enemies were forced to

retire beyond the borders of India among friendly Mlechchhas and in a

foreign land admit that the renewal of their conflict with Skandagupta

was beyond hope. The retreat of Skandagupta's Indian enemies to

the Mlechchhas suggests the Mlechchhas are the Húnas that is the

White Huns who were already in power on the Indian border, whom the

enemies had previously in vain brought as allies into India to help

them against Skandagupta. This gives exactness to the expression used

in Skandagupta's Bhitari inscription (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Number 13

page 56) that he joined in close conflict with the Húnas ... among

enemies, as if in this conflict the Húnas were the allies of enemies

rather than the enemies themselves. For the introduction into India of

foreign allies, compare in B.C. 327 (McCrindle's Alexander in India,

412) the king of Taxila, 34 miles north-west of Ráwalpindi, sending

an embassy to Baktria to secure Alexander as an ally against Porus

of the Gujarát country. And (Ditto, 409) a few years later (B.C. 310)

the North Indian Malayaketu allying himself with Yavanas in his attack

on Pátaliputra or Patna.

[225] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 14 line 4.

[226] T'oungtien quoted by Specht in Journal Asiatique for

Oct.-Dec. 1883.

[227] Badeghis is the modern Badhyr the upper plateau between the Merv

and the Herat rivers. The probable site of the capital of the White

Huns is a little north of Herat. See Marco Polo's Itineraries No. I.;

Yule's Marco Polo, I. xxxii.

[228] See the Ghazipur Seal. Smith & Hoernle,

J. A. S. Ben. LVIII. 84ff. and Fleet Ind. Ant. XIX. 224ff.

[229] Bihar Ins. Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 12.

[230] Junágadh Inscrip. Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 14.

[231] See note 1 above.

[232] See above notes 1 and 2.

[233] Ind. Ant. XVIII. 225.

[234] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introdn. 12.

[235] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. Ins. 37 line 4.

[236] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. 169-172 and Rájataranginí, I. 289-326

quoted by Fleet in Ind. Ant. XV. 247-249.

[237] Beale's Hiuen Tsiang, I. 169-171. As Mr. Fleet suggests

the younger brother is possibly the Chandra referred to in

Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 32 line 5 and Introd. 12 and 140 note 1.

[238] Ind. Ant. XIII. 230 and Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introdn. 12.

[239] Specht in Journal Asiatique for Oct.-Dec. 1883. Histoire des Wei.

[240] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. c.-cii.

[241] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. xcix.-c.

[242] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. 171. Hiuen Tsiang's statement (Ditto)

that Mihirakula conquered Gandhára after his capture by Báláditya may

refer to a reconquest from his brother, perhaps the Chandra referred

to in note 10 on page 74.

[243] Beal's Buddhist Records (I. c.) suggests that Lae-lih is the

founder's name: in his note 50 he seems to regard Lae-lih as the

family name.

[244] Bühler. Ep. Ind. I. 238. Dr. Bühler hesitates to identify the

Toramána of this inscription with Mihirakula's father.

[245] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. xcix.-c. This is the kingdom which

the Ye-tha destroyed and afterwards set up Lae-lih to be king over

the country.

[246] Maitraka is a Sanskritised form of Mihira and this again

is perhaps an adaptation of the widespread and well-known

Western Indian tribal name Mer or Med. Compare Fleet's

Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 326-327. It is to be remembered that the

name of the emperor then (A.D. 450-500) ruling the White Huns was

Khushnáwaz, a Persian name, the Happy Cherisher.... The emperor's

Persian name, Mihirakula's reported (Darmsteter Jl. Asiatique,

X. 70 n. 3) introduction of Magi into Kashmir, and the inaptness of

Mihirakula as a personal name give weight to Mr. Fleet's suggestion

(Ind. Ant. XV. 245-252) that Mihirakula is pure Persian. The true

form may then be Mihiragula, that is Sun Rose, a name which the

personal beauty of the prince may have gained him. 'I have heard

of my son's wisdom and beauty and wish once to see his face' said

the fate-reading mother of king Báláditya (Beal's Buddhist Records,

I. 169) when the captive Mihirakula was led before her his young head

for very shame shrouded in his cloak.

[247] Specht in Jour. Asiatique 1883 II. 335 and 348.

[248] J. R. A. S. XXI. 721. According to other accounts

(Ency. Brit. IX. Ed. Art. Turk. page 658) a portion of the Jouen-Jouen

remained in Eastern Asia, where, till A.D. 552, they were the masters

of the Tuhkiu or Turks, who then overthrew their masters and about

ten years later (A.D. 560) crushed the power of the White Huns.

[249] The name Jouen-Jouen seems to agree with Toramána's surname

Jaúvla and with the Juvia whom Cosmas Indikopleustes (A.D. 520-535)

places to the north-east of Persia. Priaulx's Indian Travels, 220.

[250] Rawlinson's Seventh Monarchy, 311-349.

[251] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 25 line 1.

[252] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 19 line 2.

[253] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins 36.

[254] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 20.

[255] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33.

[256] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. and Ind. Ant. XVIII. 219.

[257] Priaulx's Indian Travels, 222. Compare Yule's Cathay, I. clxx.;

Mignes' Patr. Gr. 88 page 450. For the use of Kula for Mihirakula,

the second half for the whole, compare Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 8

note. As regards the change from Kula to Gollas it is to be noted

that certain of Mihirakula's own coins (Ind. Ant. XV 249) have the

form Gula not Kula, and that this agrees with the suggestion (page

75 note 6) that the true form of the name is the Persian Mihiragula

Rose of the Sun. Of this Gollas, who, like Mihirakula, was the type

of conqueror round whom legends gather, Cosmas says (Priaulx, 223):

Besides a great force of cavalry Gollas could bring into the field

2000 elephants. So large were his armies that once when besieging an

inland town defended by a water-fosse his men horses and elephants

drank the water and marched in dry-shod.

[258] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 18.

[259] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33-35.

[260] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 35 line 5.

[261] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 151 note 4.

[262] N. Lat. 24° 3'; E. Long. 75° 8'.

[263] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33 line 5.

[264] This has already been suggested by Genl. Cunningham,

Num. Chron. (3rd Ser.), VIII. 41. Dr. Hoernle

(J. B. A. S. LVIII. 100ff) has identified Yasodharman with

Vikramáditya's son Síláditya Pratápasila.

[265] Fleet's Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Ins. 33 line 6.

[266] Beal's Buddhist Records, I. 169.

[267] Hoernle in J. B. A. S. LVIII. 97.

[268] See Smith and Hoernle J. B. A. S. LVIII. 84; and Fleet

Ind. Ant. XIX. 224.

[269] Hoernle makes light of this difficulty: J. B. A. S. LVIII. 97.

[270] Rawlinson's Seventh Monarchy, 420, 422.

[271] Mr. Vajeshankar Gavrishankar, Náib Diván of Bhávnagar, has made

a collection of articles found in Valabhi. The collection includes

clay seals of four varieties and of about the seventh century with the

Buddhist formula Ye Dhárma hetu Prabhavá: a small earthen tope with

the same formula imprinted on its base with a seal; beads and ring

stones nangs of several varieties of akik or carnelian and sphatik or

coral some finished others half finished showing that as in modern

Cambay the polishing of carnelians was a leading industry in early

Valabhi. One circular figure of the size of a half rupee carved in

black stone has engraved upon it the letters ma ro in characters of

about the second century. [The ma and ra are of the old style and

the side and upper strokes, that is the káno and mátra of ro are

horizontal.] A royal seal found by Colonel Watson in Valeh bears

on it an imperfect inscription of four lines in characters as old

as Dhruvasena I. (A.D. 526). This seal contains the names of three

generations of kings, two of which the grandfather and grandson

read Ahivarmman and Pushyána all three being called Mahárája or

great king. The dynastic name is lost. The names on these moveable

objects need not belong to Valabhi history. Still that seals of the

second and fifth centuries have been discovered in Valabhi shows the

place was in existence before the founding of the historical Valabhi

kingdom. A further proof of the age of the city is the mention of

it in the Kathásarit-ságara a comparatively modern work but of very

old materials. To this evidence of age, with much hesitation, may be

added Balai Ptolemy's name for Gopnáth point which suggests that as

early as the second century Valeh or Baleh (compare Alberuni's era

of Balah) was known by its present name. Badly minted coins of the

Gupta ruler Kumáragupta (A.D. 417-453) are so common as to suggest

that they were the currency of Valabhi.

[272] As suggested by Dr. Bühler (Ind. Ant. VI. 10), this is probably

the Vihára called Srí Bappapádiyavihára which is described as having

been constructed by Áchárya Bhadanta Sthiramati who is mentioned as

the grantee in a copperplate of Dharasena II. bearing date Gupta

269 (A.D. 588). The Sthiramati mentioned with titles of religious

veneration in the copperplate is probably the same as that referred

to by Hiuen Tsiang. (Ditto).

[273] Burgess' Káthiáwár and Kutch, 187.

[274] Stories on record about two temples one at Satruñjaya the other

at Somanátha support this view. As regards the Satruñjaya temple the

tradition is that while the minister of Kumárapála (A.D. 1143-1174)

of Anahilaváda was on a visit to Satruñjaya to worship and meditate

in the temple of Ádinátha, the wick of the lamp in the shrine was

removed by mice and set on fire and almost destroyed the temple which

was wholly of wood. The minister seeing the danger of wooden buildings

determined to erect a stone edifice (Kumárapála Charita). The story

about Somanátha is given in an inscription of the time of Kumárapála

in the temple of Bhadrakáli which shows that before the stone temple

was built by Bhímadeva I. (A.D. 1022-1072) the structure was of

wood which was traditionally believed to be as old as the time of

Krishna. Compare the Bhadrakáli inscription at Somanátha.

[275] The correctness of this inference seems open to question. The

descent of the Valabhi plate character seems traceable from its

natural local source the Skandagupta (A.D. 450) and the Rudradáman

(A.D. 150) Girnár Inscriptions.--(A. M. T. J.)

[276] The era has been exhaustively discussed by Mr. Fleet in

Corp. Ins. Ind. III. Introduction.

[277] Nepaul Inscriptions. The phrase acháta-bhata is not

uncommon. Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. page 98 note 2) explains

acháta-bhata-pravesya as "not to be entered either by regular (bhata)

or by irregular (cháta) troops."

[278] Bühler in Ind. Ant. V. 205.

[279] Ind. Ant. VII. 68.

[280] Ind. Ant. VII. 68.

[281] Of the different territorial divisions the following

examples occur: Of Vishaya or main division Svabhágapuravishaye

and Súryapuravishaye: of Áhára or collectorate Khetaka-áhára the

Kaira district and Hastavapra-áhára or Hastavapráharaní the Háthab

district near Bhávnagar: of Pathaka or sub-division Nagar-panthaka

Porbandar-panthaka (Pársis still talk of Navsári panthaka): of Sthali

or petty division Vatasthalí, Lonápadrakasthalí, and others.

[282] Kárván seems to have suffered great desecration at the hands

of the Musalmáns. All round the village chiefly under pipal trees,

images and pieces of sculpture and large lingas lie scattered. To

the north and east of the village on the banks of a large built pond

called Kásíkunda are numerous sculptures and lingas. Partly embedded

in the ground a pillar in style of about the eleventh century has a

writing over it of latter times. The inscription contains the name of

the place Sanskritised as Káyávarohana, and mentions an ascetic named

Vírabahadrarási who remained mute for twelve years. Near the pillar,

at the steps leading to the water, is a carved doorway of about the

tenth or eleventh century with some well-proportioned figures. The

left doorpost has at the top a figure of Siva, below the Siva a

figure of Súrya, below the Súrya a male and female, and under them

attendants or ganas of Siva. The right doorpost has at the top a

figure of Vishnu seated on Garuda, below the seated Vishnu a standing

Vishnu with four hands, and below that two sitting male and female

figures, the male with hands folded in worship the female holding a

purse. These figures probably represent a married pair who paid for

this gateway. Further below are figures of ganas of Siva. In 1884 in

repairing the south bank of the pond a number of carved stones were

brought from the north of the town. About half a mile north-west of

the town on the bank of a dry brook, is a temple of Chámundá Deví of

about the tenth century. It contains a mutilated life-size image of

Chámundá. Facing the temple lie mutilated figures of the seven Mátrikás

and of Bhairava, probably the remains of a separate altar facing the

temple with the mátri-mandala or Mother-Meeting upon it. The village

has a large modern temple of Siva called Naklesvara, on the site of

some old temple and mostly built of old carved temple stones. In the

temple close by are a number of old images of the sun and the boar

incarnation of Vishnu all of about the tenth or eleventh century. The

name Naklesvara would seem to have been derived from Nakulisa the

founder of the Pásupata sect and the temple may originally have had

an image of Nakulisa himself or a linga representing Nakulísa. Close

to the west of the village near a small dry reservoir called the

Kunda of Rájarájesvara lies a well-preserved black stone seated

figure of Chanda one of the most respected of Siva's attendants,

without whose worship all worship of Siva is imperfect, and to whom

all that remains after making oblations to Siva is offered. A number

of other sculptures lie on the bank of the pond. About a mile to the

south of Kárván is a village called Lingthali the place of lingas.

[283] Compare Beal Buddhist Records, II. 268 note 76 and

Ind. Ant. VI. 9. The meaning and reference of the title Bappa have

been much discussed. The question is treated at length by Mr. Fleet

(Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 186 note 1) with the result that the title is

applied not to a religious teacher but to the father and predecessor

of the king who makes the grant. According to Mr. Fleet bappa would

be used in reference to a father, báva in reference to an uncle.

[284] Whether the Valabhis were or were not Gurjjaras the following

facts favour the view that they entered Gujarát from Málwa. It has

been shown (Fleet Ind. Ant. XX. 376) that while the Guptas used the

so-called Northern year beginning with Chaitra, the Valabhi year

began with Kártika (see Ind. Ant. XX. 376). And further Kielhorn

in his examination of questions connected with the Vikrama era

(Ind. Ant. XIX. and XX.) has given reasons for believing that the

original Vikrama year began with Kártika and took its rise in Málwa. It

seems therefore that when they settled in Gujarát, while they adopted

the Gupta era the Valabhis still adhered to the old arrangement of

the year to which they had been accustomed in their home in Málwa. The

arrangement of the year entered into every detail of their lives, and

was therefore much more difficult to change than the starting point of

their era, which was important only for official acts.--(A. M. T. J.)

[285] Montfauçon's Edition in Priaulx's Indian Travels, 222-223. It

seems doubtful if Cosmas meant that Gollas' overlordship spread as

far south as Kalyán. Compare Migne's Patrologiæ Cursus, lxxxviii. 466;

Yule's Cathay, I. clxx.

[286] The Mehrs seem to have remained in power also in north-east

Káthiáváda till the thirteenth century. Mokheráji Gohil the famous

chief of Piram was the son of a daughter of Dhan Mehr or Mair of

Dhanduka, Rás Mála, I. 316.

[287] All the silver and copper coins found in Valabhi and in the

neighbouring town of Sihor are poor imitations of Kumáragupta's

(A.D. 417-453) and of Skandagupta's (A.D. 454-470) coins, smaller

lighter and of bad almost rude workmanship. The only traces

of an independent currency are two copper coins of Dharasena,

apparently Dharasena IV., the most powerful of the dynasty who was

called Chakravartin or Emperor. The question of the Gupta-Valabhi

coins is discussed in Jour. Royal As. Socy. for Jan. 1893 pages

133-143. Dr. Bühler (page 138) holds the view put forward in this

note of Dr. Bhagvánlál's namely that the coins are Valabhi copies

of Gupta currency. Mr. Smith (Ditto, 142-143) thinks they should be

considered the coins of the kings whose names they bear.

[288] The three types of coins still current at Ujjain, Bhilsa, and

Gwálior in the territories of His Highness Sindhia are imitations of

the previous local Muhammadan coinage.

[289] As the date of Dronasimha's investiture is about A.D. 520

it is necessary to consider what kings at this period claimed the

title of supreme lord and could boast of ruling the whole earth. The

rulers of this period whom we know of are Mihirakula, Yasodharman

Vishnuvardhana, the descendants of Kumáragupta's son Puragupta, and

the Gupta chiefs of Eastern Málwa. Neither Toramána nor Mihirakula

appears to have borne the paramount title of Paramesvara though the

former is called Mahárájádhirája in the Eran inscription and Avanipati

or Lord of the Earth (= simply king) on his coins: in the Gwálior

inscription Mihirakula is simply called Lord of the Earth. He was a

powerful prince but he could hardly claim to be ruler of "the whole

circumference of the earth." He therefore cannot be the installer of

Dronasimha. Taking next the Guptas of Magadha we find on the Bhitári

seal the title of Mahárájádhirája given to each of them, but there

is considerable reason to believe that their power had long since

shrunk to Magadha and Eastern Málwa, and if Hiuen Tsiang's Báláditya

is Narasimhagupta, he must have been about A.D. 520 a feudatory

of Mihirakula, and could not be spoken of as supreme lord, nor as

ruler of the whole earth. The Guptas of Málwa have even less claim

to these titles, as Bhánugupta was a mere Mahárája, and all that

is known of him is that he won a battle at Eran in Eastern Málwa

in A.D. 510-11. Last of all comes Vishnuvardhana or Yasodharman

of Mandasor. In one of the Mandasor inscriptions he has the titles

of Rájádhirája and Paramesvara (A.D. 532-33); in another he boasts

of having carried his conquests from the Lauhitya (Brahmaputra) to

the western ocean and from the Himálaya to mount Mahendra. It seems

obvious that Yasodharman is the Paramasvámi of the Valabhi plate,

and that the reference to the western ocean relates to Bhatárka's

successes against the Maitrakas.--(A.M.T.J.)

[290] Ind. Ant. V. 204.

[291] Ind. Ant. IV. 104.

[292] In a commentary on the Kalpasútra Dandanáyaka is described as

meaning Tantrapâla that is head of a district.

[293] Ind. Ant. VII. 66; IV. 174.

[294] Ind. Ant. V. 206.

[295] Ind. Ant. XIV. 75.

[296] Kumárápála-Charita, Abu Inscriptions.

[297] Ind. Ant. VIII. 302, VII. 68, XIII. 160.

[298] Ind. Ant. VI. 9.

[299] Ind. Ant. VII. 90.

[300] This change of title was probably connected with the increase of

Gurjara power, which resulted in the founding of the Gurjara kingdom

of Broach about A.D. 580. See Chapter X. below.

[301] Ind. Ant. XI. 306.

[302] Ind. Ant. VI. 13.

[303] Kávyamidam rachitam mayá Valabhyám, Srí Dharasena-narendra

pálitáyám.

[304] Ind. Ant. VII. 76.

[305] Journ. Beng. A. S. IV. and an unpublished grant in the museum

of the B. B. R. A. Soc.

[306] Ind. Ant. XI. 305.

[307] Since his authorities mention the destroyers of Valabhi under

the vague term mlechchhas or barbarians and since the era in which they

date the overthrow may be either the Vikrama B.C. 57, the Saka A.D. 78,

or the Valabhi A.D. 319, Tod is forced to offer many suggestions. His

proposed dates are A.D. 244 Vik. Sam. 300 (Western India, 269),

A.D. 424 Val. Sam. 105 (Ditto, 51 and 214), A.D. 524 Val. Sam. 205

(Annals of Rájasthán, I. 83 and 217-220), and A.D. 619 Val. Sam. 300

(Western India, 352). Tod identifies the barbarian destroyers of

Valabhi either with the descendants of the second century Parthians,

or with the White Huns Getes or Káthis, or with a mixture of these

who in the beginning of the sixth century supplanted the Parthians

(An. of Ráj. I. 83 and 217-220; Western India, 214, 352). Elliot

(History, I. 408) accepting Tod's date A.D. 524 refers the overthrow

to Skythian barbarians from Sindh. Elphinstone, also accepting

A.D. 524 as an approximate date, suggested (History, 3rd Edition,

212) as the destroyer the Sassanian Naushirván or Chosroes the Great

(A.D. 531-579) citing in support of a Sassanian inroad Malcolm's

Persia, I. 141 and Pottinger's Travels, 386. Forbes (Rás Málá,

I. 22) notes that the Jain accounts give the date of the overthrow

Vik. Sam. 375 that is A.D. 319 apparently in confusion with the epoch

of the Gupta era which the Valabhi kings adopted. ((Similarly S. 205

the date given by some of Col. Tod's authorities (An. of Ráj. I. 82

and 217-220) represents A.D. 524 the practical establishment of the

Valabhi dynasty. The mistake of ascribing an era to the overthrow not

to the founding of a state occurs (compare Sachau's Alberuni, II. 6)

in the case both of the Vikrama era B.C. 57 and of the Sáliváhana era

A.D. 78. In both these cases the error was intentional. It was devised

with the aim of hiding the supremacy of foreigners in early Hindu

history. So also, according to Alberuni's information (Sachau, II. 7)

the Guptakála A.D. 319 marks the ceasing not the beginning of the

wicked and powerful Guptas. This device is not confined to India. His

Mede informant told Herodotus (B.C. 450 Rawlinson's Herodotus, I. 407)

that B.C. 708 was the founding of the Median monarchy. The date really

marked the overthrow of the Medes by the Assyrian Sargon.)) Forbes

says (Ditto, 24): If the destroyers had not been called mlechchhas I

might have supposed them to be the Dakhan Chálukyas. Genl. Cunningham

(Anc. Geog. 318) holds that the date of the destruction was A.D. 658

and the destroyer the Ráshtrakúta Rája Govind who restored the ancient

family of Sauráshtra. Thomas (Prinsep's Useful Tables, 158) fixes the

destruction of Valabhi at A.D. 745 (S. 802). In the Káthiáwár Gazetteer

Col. Watson in one passage (page 671) says the destroyers may have been

the early Muhammadans who retired as quickly as they came. In another

passage (page 274), accepting Mr. Burgess' (Arch. Sur. Rep. IV. 75)

Gupta era of A.D. 195 and an overthrow date of A.D. 642, and citing

a Wadhwán couplet telling how Ebhal Valabhi withstood the Iranians,

Col. Watson suggests the destroyers may have been Iranians. If the

Pársis came in A.D. 642 they must have come not as raiders but as

refugees. If they could they would not have destroyed Valabhi. If

the Pársis destroyed Valabhi where next did they flee to.

[308] Tod (An. of Ráj. I. 231) notices what is perhaps a reminiscence

of this date (A.D. 766). It is the story that Bappa, who according to

Mewád tradition is the founder of Gehlot power at Chitor, abandoned

his country for Irán in A.D. 764 (S. 820). It seems probable that

this Bappa or Saila is not the founder of Gehlot power at Chitor,

but, according to the Valabhi use of Bappa, is the founder's father

and that this retreat to Irán refers to his being carried captive to

Mansúra on the fall either of Valabhi or of Gandhár.

[309] Reinaud's Fragments, 143 note 1; Mémoire Sur l'Inde, 105;

Sachau's Alberuni, I. 193. The treachery of the magician Ranka is the

same cause as that assigned by Forbes (Rás Málá, I. 12-18) from Jain

sources. The local legend (Ditto, 18) points the inevitable Tower

of Siloam moral, a moral which (compare Rás Málá, I. 18) is probably

at the root of the antique tale of Lot and the Cities of the Plain,

that men whose city was so completely destroyed must have been sinners

beyond others. Dr. Nicholson (J. R. A. S. Ser. I. Vol. XIII. page 153)

in 1851 thought the site of Valabhi bore many traces of destruction

by water.

[310] Lassen (Ind. Alt. III. 533) puts aside Alberuni's Arab expedition

from Mansúra as without historical support and inadmissible. Lassen

held that Valabhi flourished long after its alleged destruction from

Mansúra. Lassen's statement (see Ind. Alt. III. 533) is based on the

mistaken idea that as the Valabhis were the Balharas the Balharas'

capital Mánkir must be Valabhi. So far as is known, except Alberuni

himself (see below) none of the Arab geographers of the ninth, tenth

or eleventh centuries mentions Valabhi. It is true that according

to Lassen (Ind. Alt. 536) Masudi A.D. 915, Istakhri A.D. 951,

and Ibn Háukal A.D. 976 all attest the existence of Valabhi up to

their own time. This remark is due either to the mistake regarding

Malkhet or to the identification of Bálwi or Balzi in Sindh (Elliot's

History, I. 27-34) with Valabhi. The only known Musalmán reference to

Valabhi later than A.D. 750 is Alberuni's statement (Sachau, II. 7)

that the Valabhi of the era is 30 yojanas or 200 miles south of

Anahilaváda. That after its overthrow Valabhi remained, as it still

continues, a local town has been shown in the text. Such an after-life

is in no way inconsistent with its destruction as a leading capital

in A.D. 767.

[311] According to Alberuni (Sachau, I. 21) Al Mansúra, which was

close to Bráhmanábád about 47 miles north-east of Haidarábád (Elliot's

Musalmán Historians, I. 372-374) was built by the great Muhammad Kásim

about A.D. 713. Apparently Alberuni wrote Muhammad Kásim by mistake

for his grandson Amru Muhammad (Elliot, I. 372 note 1 and 442-3),

who built the city a little before A.D. 750. Reinaud (Fragments,

210) makes Amru the son of Muhammad Kásim. Masudi (A.D. 915) gives

the same date (A.D. 750), but (Elliot, I. 24) makes the builder

the Ummayide governor Mansúr bin Jamhur. Idrísi (A.D. 1137 Elliot,

I. 78) says Mansúra was built and named in honour of the Khalif Abu

Jáfar-al-Mansur. If so its building would be later than A.D. 754. On

such a point Idrísi's authority carries little weight.

[312] Elliot, I. 244.

[313] That the word read Barada by Elliot is in the lax pointless

shikasta writing is shown by the different proposed readings (Elliot,

I. 444 note 1) Nárand, Barand, and Barid. So far as the original

goes Balaba is probably as likely a rendering as Barada. Reinaud

(Fragments, 212) says he cannot restore the name.

[314] Though, except as applied to the Porbandar range of hills, the

name Barada is almost unknown, and though Ghumli not Barada was the

early (eighth-twelfth century) capital of Porbandar some place named

Barada seems to have existed on the Porbandar coast. As early as the

second century A.D., Ptolemy (McCrindle, 37) has a town Barda-xema

on the coast west of the village Kome (probably the road or kom) of

Sauráshtra; and St. Martin (Geographie Grecque et Latine de l'Inde,

203) identifies Pliny's (A.D. 77) Varetatæ next the Odomberæ or people

of Kachh with the Varadas according to Hemachandra (A.D. 1150) a class

of foreigners or mlechchhas. A somewhat tempting identification of

Barada is with Beruni's Bárwi (Sachau, I. 208) or Baraoua (Reinaud's

Fragments, 121) 84 miles (14 parasangs) west of Somanátha. But an

examination of Beruni's text shows that Bárwi is not the name of a

place but of a product of Kachh the bára or bezoar stone.

[315] Elliot, I. 445.

[316] Compare Tod (Annals, I. 83 and 217). Gajni or Gayni another

capital whence the last prince Síláditya was expelled by Parthian

invaders in the sixth century.

[317] Compare Reinaud (Fragments, 212 note 4) who identifies it with

the Áin-i-Akbari Kandahár that is Gandhár in Broach. The identification

is doubtful. Tod (Annals, I. 217) names the fort Gajni or Gayni and

there was a fort Gajni close to Cambay. Elliot (I. 445) would identify

the Arab Kandahár with Khandadár in north-west Káthiáváda.

Even after A.D. 770 Valabhi seems to have been attacked by the

Arabs. Dr. Bhagvánlál notices that two Jain dates for the destruction

of the city 826 and 886 are in the Vira era and that this means

not the Mahávira era of B.C. 526 but the Vikram era of B.C. 57. The

corresponding dates are therefore A.D. 769 and 829. Evidence in support

of the A.D. 769 and 770 defeat is given in the text. On behalf of

Dr. Bhagvánlál's second date A.D. 829 it is remarkable that in or

about A.D. 830 (Elliot, I. 447) Músa the Arab governor of Sindh

captured Bála the ruler of As Sharqi. As there seems no reason to

identify this As Sharqi with the Sindh lake of As Sharqi mentioned

in a raid in A.D. 750 (Elliot, I. 441: J. R. A. S. (1893) page 76)

the phrase would mean Bála king of the east. The Arab record of the

defeat of Bála would thus be in close agreement with the Jain date

for the latest foreign attack on Valabhi.

[318] The identification of the Balharas of the Arab writers with the

Chálukyas (A.D. 500-753) and Ráshtrakútas (A.D. 753-972) of Málkhet

in the East Dakhan has been accepted. The vagueness of the early

(A.D. 850-900) Arab geographers still more the inaccuracy of Idrísi

(A.D. 1137) in placing the Balharas capital in Gujarát (Elliot, I. 87)

suggested a connection between Balhara and Valabhi. The suitableness

of this identification was increased by the use among Rájput writers

of the title Balakarai for the Valabhi chief (Tod An. of Ráj. I. 83)

and the absence among either the Chálukyas (A.D. 500-753) or the

Ráshtrakútas (A.D. 753-972) of Málkhet of any title resembling

Balhara. Prof. Bhandárkar's (Deccan History, 56-57) discovery that

several of the early Chálukyas and Ráshtrakútas had the personal name

Vallabha Beloved settled the question and established the accuracy

of all Masudi's (A.D. 915) statements (Elliot, I. 19-21) regarding

the Balhara who ruled the Kamkar, that is Kamrakara or Karnátak

(Sachau's Beruni, I. 202; II. 318) and had their Kánarese (Kiriya)

capital at Mankir (Málkhet) 640 miles from the coast.

[319] After their withdrawal from Valabhi to Mewád the Válas took the

name of Gehlot (see below page 98), then of Aharya from a temporary

capital near Udepur (Tod's An. of Ráj. I. 215), next of Sesodia in the

west of Mewád (Tod's An. of Raj. I. 216; Western India, 57). Since 1568

the Rána's head-quarters have been at Udepur. Ráj. Gaz. III. 18. After

the establishment of their power in Chitor (A.D. 780), a branch of the

Gehlot or Gohil family withdrew to Kheir in south-west Márwár. These

driven south by the Ráthods in the end of the twelfth century are

the Gohils of Piram, Bhávnagar, and Rájpipla in Káthiáváda and

Gujarát. Tod's Annals of Ráj. I. 114, 228.