CHAPTER II HISTORY OF THE WESTERN KSHATRAPAS

Political conditions in after the close of the Mauryan period became diffuse, involving a variety of rulers, eras and people. Northern India found itself caught up in the turmoil of happenings in Central Asia. With the building of the Great Wall of China, the nomadic tribes whose pastures dried out could not make inroads into China (Thapar 1990: 96; Bagchi 1955:1). The tribes were forced to migrate south and west. Of the three main tribes the Yueh-chih were driven out from the best lands, and had to flee far across the continent. They split themselves into two hoards, the little Yueh-chih and the great Yueh-chih, and wandered further west of the shores of the Aral sea, where they stopped for a while, replacing the inhabitants of the region, the or as they were called in the Indian sources (Bagchi 1955:2; Konow 1969:xxvi-xxvii). So Sakas poured into Bactria and Parthia. A Chinese visitor records that in 128 B.C. the land surrounding the Aral sea had been cleared of Scythians, instead he found the Yueh-chih settled there. The Parthians failed to hold back the Sakas who did not pause there but using the Bolan pass (near Quetta), swept down into the Indus valley and settled in Western India. The first king was (c. 80 B.C.) who established Saka power in (Thapar 1990: 97;Konow 1969:xxvi-xxix; Bagchi 1955: 123-124). However the Yueh-chih chief Kujula Khadiphises led

31 the united five tribes of the Yueh-chih and led them over the northern mountains into the Indian sxibcontinent. This pushed the Sakas south into the region of Kutch, Kathiawar and in Western India. In the midst of all this was the incorporation of new trends in coinage, art and culture (memorial stones) from not only the tribes who invaded India but also those who settled down. This resulted into what appears to be certain peculiarities in the Indian subcontinent. Probably the Gupta form of government i.e. decentralised rule was a result of contact with peoples from Central Asia who probably lived within the Persian empire 400 centuries or more before. The Kusana polity of north India and the Satavahana polity of the Deccan has a two tiered or three tiered structure administrative system which was the precursor of the Indian feudal system (Chattopadhyaya 1983: 29) . These Central Asian people were the precursors of the Western Kshatrapas.

The Western Kshatrapas are so called because they ruled over the western part of India: , Northern , the adjoining parts of Raj asthan and Madhya Pradesh. (Chakrabarti 1981:78-85; Jain 1972:85). Several places in this region have been mentioned in Usavadatta's Nasik inscription as religious pilgrimage sites like Pushkar in Rajasthan, Nanamgole which is in south Gujarat, etc (Senart 1905:71-73). Maharashtra has a number of Kshatrapa inscriptions of 's family {Mirashi 1981:Part 2,121).

32 Svami Jivadaman's inscription has been found from near (Banerji 1921-22:230). It is on the basis of the provenance of these inscriptions that the ruled territories have been demarcated from the other areas where Kshatrapa coins have been found.

The word Kshatrapa comes from the Persian word "Kshatrapavan" meaning the protector of the land (Sykes 1915: 172; Rosenfeild 1967:296). The term occurs in the persian Behistun inscription of Darius. During the reign of Darius, the Persian empire had grown to gigantic proportions. Therefore, he divided the empire into a number of provinces and appointed a man from one province as the governor of another province. These governors were titled Kshatrapa (Sykes 1915:172; Konow 1969:xvii; Tolman 1908). It is apparent that the meaning of the term Kshatrapa got changed, in course of time, from a mere governor under a king to an independent sovereign.

The early members of the Kshaharata and the Kardamaka families were not Indian. They had names like Bhumaka, , Ghasmotika, , etc which are not Indian names (Thomas 1906:204; Sastry 1957:273). Therefore, these families are called Sakas, which means nomads (Gardner 1966:XLViii). The ancient Indians used the terms Sakas and Pahlavas to denote foreigners. According to Thomas they are based on linguistic identification of proper names (Thomas 1906:204-216). The

33 name Saka is an ancient ethnic designation familiar to such classical authors as Herodotus, Arrian, Strabo and Pliny.

Herodotus remarked, that the Persians called all Scythians, Sakas; at Persepolis and Naqsh-i-Rustam, relief carvings and inscriptions (Konow 1969:xvi-xx) distinguish between the Saka Tigarakhauda (the "pointed hat" Sakas;), the Saka Haumavarka (possibly the Sakas of the Jaxartes plain) and the Saka Paradraya or Taradraya (the Sakas beyond the Black Sea). Others lived "beyond Sogdiana" ("para Sogdam") (Rosenfield 1967:121-123; Konow 1969:xvi).

Unquestionably, the Sakas of India originated in Central Asia, but at what time and from which of the above named groups is not clear. There was an important group of Sakas active in the eastern province of the . Brought as mercenaries against the Seleucids by Mithradates I and his successor Phraates II about the second century B.C., these Sakas had turned against the Parthians and captured significant parts of the empire.

Mithradates the Great, with the aid of a powerful feudal lord called the Suren, succeeded in expelling the Sakas from Parthia and Siestan, and around 120-110 B.C. they apparently entered the middle Indus region via the Bolan and Mulla passes. Several scholars believe that this was the basis of the entire Saka conquest of northern and western India (Rosenfield 1967:123; Debevoise 1938:54-69).

34 Various scholars like Rapson (1967) and Mirashi (1981) have grouped the various families who ruled over the above mentioned areas and who used the title Kshatrapa or Mahakshatrapa into one unit. This is misleading. The term Kshatrapa or Mahakshatrapa has been used also by some non-Saka rulers. The title Mahakshatrapa has been used by one king called Vasisthiputra from Nagarjunakonda, his coins are also akin to those of the Kardamaka Kshatrapa coins (Thosar 1992:28-29) and there is another instance where the term Mahakshatrapa has been used in a coin legend by a ruler who has the metronomycs Vasisthiputra which is a Satavahana trait (Gokhale 1991:31). Also an inscription from Pauni, Bhandara district, is of Mahakshatrapa Rupiamma which according to Mirashi (1981:84) was a Saka Kshatrapa inscription. According to Thosar (1992:28) Rupiamma is not a Saka Kshatrapa name, but Rupiamma is the prakrit version of Rukmi. "Rupi" is the main name and "amma" being the suffix, Rupiamma has been connected to the Rukmi of Rukmini of Mahabharat (Thosar 1992:28-29). Therefore, the term Kshatrapa was a title and not .a dynastic name. The title Kshatrapa was used by any ruling family in ancient India irrespective of race, origin or community. Hence one should not use the term Kshatrapa to denote a dynasty.

The Kshaharatas and the Kardamakas are two different families because the silver coins of Nahapana bear the legend "Rano Kshaharata Nahapana" where Rano is the title or Raja,

35 Kshaharata is the family name and then Nahapana is the king's name. The Kardamaka silver coin legends do not mention the name Kardamaka, however, the daughter of , who was the wife of Vasisthiputra Sri Satakarni, has called herself as belonging to the Kardamaka Kula in the Kanheri cave inscription (Gokhale 1991:62, inscription no 16, cave no 5: Dubrieul 1920:41) and in Rudradaman's inscription (Kielhorn 1905:36) it is mentioned that Rudradaman twice defeated a Satavahana who is not too distantly related, this king Rudradaman defeated was Siva Skanda Satakarni and the brother of Vasisthiputra Sri Satakarni who was the son-in-law of Rudradaman (Jha and Rajgor 1994:6).

These two families are called the Kshaharatas and the Kardamakas. They were different groups with a different culture and possibly origin after they reached northwestern India and Afghanistan. The differences between the two families are as follows:

Kardamakas: The Kardamakas were the later of the two families since Chashtana, the founder of the Kardamaka rule was the contemporary of Vasisthiputra Pulumavi. Nahapana of the Kshaharata family was the contemporary of , The Nasik Inscription of Gautamiputra Satakarni mentions him acquiring the territory from the Kshaharatas (Senart 1905:71-73). The dates of Nahapana have been fixed between 48 AD and 94 or 52 AD and 98 AD (Jha and Rajgor 1994:4-5). The coins of the Kardamaka rulers are of two

36 varieties, silver coins and base metal coins. The silver coins are round and have head of king on obverse with the date behind the ear of the effigy. The other side of the coin has a three arched hill symbol along with the sun symbol and the coins of the later rulers of the family also have the crescent symbol, and a wavy line below the three arched hill symbol. A brahmi legend skirts the edge of the reverse side which reads as "Rajno Mahakshatrapa Rudradamnaputrasa Rajna Mahakshatrapasa Rudrasimhasa", which means that the Mahakshatrapa Rudrasimha is the son of Mahakshatrapa Rudradaman and that Rudrasimha I was the issuer of the coins and the reigning ruler. The silver coins of all the rulers from Chashtana to Rudrasena III are of the cibove mentioned type. The base metal coins have an animal like an elephant on the obverse and reverse is the same as the silver coins but without the legend. Very rarely is the name of the ruler mentioned on the base metal coins.

All the inscriptions of the Kardamaka family are found from Gujarat. The inscriptions of this family are eighteen in number. Ten inscription were found from Kutch. The earliest inscription is found from Daulatpur belonging to the reign of Chashtana and dated to 84 AD (Mirashi 1978b:34-37) . The second earliest is from Andhau which is also of Chashtana and dated to 89 AD (Gokhale 1968a:104), The other inscriptions found from Kutch are also from Andhau and Khavda. Four inscriptions on a single slab of rock which is the joint

37 issue of Chashtana and Rudradaman dated to 130 AD (Banerji 1921-22:19), Rudrasitnha I's inscription dated to 192 AD (Jamindar 1975:92) is also found from Andhau. Another inscription of the reign of Rudradaman which is dated to 140 AD was found from Khavda about 30 km away from the provenance of the above inscriptions. The other inscriptions found from Kutch were of Rudrasimha I from Vandh (Mandvi taluka)(Jamindar 1975:74; Mirashi 1981:part 2:132) and Bhartradaman's inscription from Mevasa (Rapar taluka) (Diskalkar 1928:565; Mirashi 1981:143).

All these are memorial stones which mention the week, the year and name of the reigning ruler, the names of his predecessors, the name of the deceased and his family members along with the name of their gotra and the name of the erector has also been mentioned. The other eight inscriptions are from . The inscription from Mulwasar (Okhamandal, Jamnagar district)(Gadre 1943:1) and Jasdan (Banerji and Sukthankar 1921:236) were memorial stones. The Gunda inscription from Jamnagar district (Banerji and Sukthankar 1921:233), the Visavadar inscription which was located in Junagadh district (Times of India, Ahmedabad edition, February 6, 1995), an inscription of found from an unknown provenance (Mirashi 1981 Part 2:142- 143) all record the digging of a well. The other inscriptions are the Junagadh Rock Inscription of Rudradaman (Kielhorn 1905:36; Mirashi 1981 Part 2:129), an inscription of a

38 grandson of Jayadaman was found in a bad condition from the Bawa Pyara caves on the outskirts of Junagadh (Banerji and Sukthankar 1921:239).

Another inscription from Lathi was in such a bad condition that only the first line Mahakshatrapa (Svamin) Rudra, can be made out. The inscription probably refers to Rudrasena I (Mirashi 1981 Part 2:141). A cave inscription from Kadia Dungar, near , in East Gujarat mentions a cave excavation for the good of all human beings and animals dating to Viradtnan's reign (Gokhale 1972:290-294).

The character of the inscriptions found from Gujarat vary. Two inscriptions are on clay (Momin 1983:41; Chhabra 1949:174) and one casket inscription (Mehta and Chowdhary 1963:173) have not been mentioned in the eighteen inscriptions/above since these three are not stone slab or rock inscriptions. One of these three inscriptions is from a stone casket found from the Devnimori stupa excavation (Mehta and Chowdhary 1963:173-176) which is religious and historical in character mentioning that the stupa was built in the year 127 ofJJie Kathika era during the reign of Raja Rudrasena. The x^eligious laalf of the inscription mentions that the bones of a monk were put in the casket (Mirashi 1965:102). The other two inscriptions are on clay seals, one from Intwa which is located 5 km from Junagadh is religious and mentions that the seal belongs to the congregation of monks at the

39 Raja Rudrasena monastery and has been attested to the time of Rudrasena I (Chhabra 1949:174). The other clay seal was from Dholka in East Gujarat which is inscribed with Rajno Rudrasena written on it (Momin 1983:41). Therefore a variety of inscriptions have been found from Gujarat of the Kardamaka family. It can also be seen from the inscriptions in Mirashi (1981) that no inscriptions of the Satavahanas or Nahapana have been found from Gujarat. .—^ «2.-73-

The claim that was the capital of Chashtana on the basis of Ptolemy's evidence is flimsy. Ujjain could not have been Chashtana's capital because 1. Unlike Pataliputra, Ujjain has been described as an important city of , politically and commercially, but has not been mentioned as Chashtana's capital. The knowledge that Pataliputra was the capital of the Nandas, Mauryas, etc, is known from tradition. Ujjain, as the capital of Chashtana is known only from Ptolemy (McCrindle 1927) who was a foreigner and who may be mistaken on account of Ujjain being an important trade centre. Ptolemy's Geography was, after all a geographic guide for sailours and merchants. Furthermore, (Majumdar 1988 (Reprint) the sources of Indian history has only mentioned Ujjain, as an important centre for trade and politics of the Avanti area and not as Chashtana's capital. 2. According to Law (1944:18) Rudradaman's seat of power was in Kutch , which later shifted to Saurashtra and Anarta. This conclusion was reached on the basis of the presence of

40 Kardamaka inscriptions in Kutch and Kathiawad. In addition, majority of the Kardamaka inscriptions have not been erected by the ruler but by the people he ruled over. The mentioning of the names of the Kardamaka ruler right from the founding member of the dynasty down to the reigning ruler is a form of deification of the Kardamaka rulers which indicates the acceptance of their authority by the locals. 3. The identification of Ujjain as the capital of Chashtana is illogical not only because of the above reasons but a, the eastern flanks of Gujarat are bordered by the foothills of the Aravalli and Sahyadhri ranges which are inhabited by the Bhils who are a fierce tribe. This forms a natural means of fortification for Gujarat from the east. Ujjain is situated east of this line of defense, and therefore, seems illogical as the capital of .the Kardamakas. b. Bharuch controlled trade to all parts of India, Ujjain was important for trade from the Himalayas and precious stones from Avanti which was an important resource. Therefore, Ujjain may have been under Kardamaka control for commercial purposes but the capital would have been in Gujarat, the greater hinterland of Kardamaka territory ahd in an area where their authority had been accepted. Even the Indian historians like Raychaudhari mention that Ujjain was Chashtana's capital according to Ptolemy. They have not supported his view but only mentioned what he had to say. The bone of contention between the Satavahanas and Chashtana's

41 family was Bharuch. Ear.lier, the Avasyakasutra mentions Bharuch as Nahapana's capital and he fought over it with the Satavahanas. The Satavahanas were the threat to Chashtana's family. The Satavahanas ruled the areas to the south of Gujarat. The eastern flanks were protected by the Bhils. The Gangetic basin was ruled by numerous small kings. Therefore, there was no threat from the north. The in the were defeated by Rudradaman. Ujjain, therefore, would not be able to protect Gujarat from the Satavahanas and was essential only to protect Madhya Pradesh from the north, and not Gujarat which was the centre of power for the Kardamaka rulers. Therefore, a political centre in Saurashtra would enable the Kardamakas to control trade in precious goods like agate from India and wine from the west.

It can be deduced from the type of Kardamaka inscriptions found in Gujarat that: 1. Absence of inscriptions recording land grants from Guj arat. 2. The absence of any inscriptions from the caves pertaining to donations made by merchants to monastic establishments. 3. The non availability of donatory inscriptions in Gujarat shows the non involvement of the Kardamaka rulers with monastic establishments in connection with trade.

It is known from the Junagadh Rock inscription of Rudradaman (Kielhorn 1905:36-49; Mirashi 1981, Part 2:129)

42 that taxes were levied and dues were collected in the form of semi precious stones like agate and jasper. But the economic activities from which these have been collected have not been mentioned. The Bharuch to Ujjain trade route, an inportant trading sphere during the early centuries of the Christian Era and the source of a lot of wealth, have not yielded any inscriptions which describe economic activities or activities connected with it. According to Ray (1986:142), the establishment of monastic orders and the granting of villages and lands to them by the Satavahana rulers pushed agriculture to unsettled areas and brought uncultivated areas under the control of Satavahana rule. It was a way of Brahmanising or bring people who lived outside the varna system into the realm of the Satavahana rulers. This feature is not present in Gujarat as can be noticed from the inscriptional data, the area ruled over by the Kardamakas.

A plausible explanation for the absence of land grants may be found in the Varna system. The Kardamakas were Sakas. They were foreigners and therefore varna status was denied to them. Varna status, genealogy traced to an important ancient dynasty and a land base went hand in hand (Thapar 1992:153). Without land base, land could not be granted. An indigenous land base proclaims kinship links or earlier established lineages (Thapar 1992:155).

This was out of reach for the Kardamaka rulers of Gujarat, therefore, they could not be permitted to issue land grants. Another reason for this feature may be the dry climate of Kutch, Saurashtra and North Gujarat which caused agriculture to be practiced along river banks. Agricultural activity was therefore curtailed to certain pockets compared to that of the Deccan where rivers like the Krishna and Godavari sustained massive agricultural activity. Hence, the Kardamakas unlike the Satavahanas could not push agriculture to unsettled areas. This is also the reason for the absence of donatory inscriptions.

Three inscriptions erected during the reign of the Kardamakas rulers mention the digging of wells. The Gunda inscription of Rudrasimha I mentions the digging of a stepwell or vapi. The inscription of Vijayasena reign which was found from the Rajkot museum mentions the digging of well in the field of the son of Simhasena (Mirashi 1981, part 2: 142) . So one of them was probably meant for irrigation and agriculture and the other was possibly religious or more likely social in character. The practice of constructing wells during the Kardamaka rule of Gujarat may be due to their Central Asian ancestry and the effect of long living in arid areas. The inscriptions of this type are mostly located in an area where water was not likely to stay due to the slope of the landscape. The Visavadar inscription was located at the source of the Ojat river, near the Gir hills. The Gunda inscription was located to the north of the Barda hills which is an area low in rainfall. Therefore, water was

44 clearly a problem, plentiful only in the monsoon months and for about three months after that. Hence, agriculture clearly could not be a major economic force which is why land could not be granted. The presence of these memorial inscriptions in Saurashtra and Kutch where agriculture is marginal and pastoralism is more important strengthens the point that these inscriptions were associated with pastoralism.

Another peculiarity of the inscriptions of Gujarat of Kardamaka Kshatrapa times is the mention of not only the name of the reigning ruler but also those of his predecessors right from the founder. This signifies the deification of the rulers by the common man. The erection of inscriptions by the common man was allowed (Sircar 1965:3). This aspect is particularly interesting when compared with the fact that the Mauryas and the Guptas ruled over Gujarat. We know this for a fact from the Junagadh Rock inscription of Asoka and the Guptas. If the inhabitants of Gujarat really acknowledged the suzerainty of either of these two dynasties they would have erected inscriptions naming the rulers.

The deification of the Kardamaka rulers not only indicates the acceptance of the Kardamaka rulers by the inhabitants of Gujarat but has also honoured the family by commemorating the rulers right from the founding member of the dynasty. This feature signifies two points. One is that the erectors of these inscriptions were from the same stock as the Kardamaka rulers or the inhabitants of Saurashtra and

45 Kutch totally accepted the Kardamaka rulers as their kings. This also means the Kardamaka rulers greatly increased their worth in the eyes of their subjects.

The Kardamaka rule in Gujarat started from the reign of Chashtana. The presence of Chashtana's statue at Mat near in the Kusana devakula (Vogel 1911:125) prompted the earlier historians like Dxibrieul (1920) , etc to establish the idea that the Kardamaka Kshatrapas were the feudatories of the Kusanas. The reading of the inscription from the statue is doubtful (Vogel 1911:125). Vogel has read it as Mastana. The Patika inscription (Konow 1969:23) mentions Liaka Patika as Kshatrapa during the reign of the Great King Moga. This is not the case with any of the inscriptions of Chashtana. This conclusion was reached after surveying the inscriptional evidence of the Kshaharata family (Jha and Rajgor 1994:7).

Ghsamotika, was the father of Chashtana, who is not known to have ruled (Rapson 1967). The successors of Chashtana were Jayadaman who did not become Mahakshatrapa and Rudradaman ruled jointly with Chashtana in 130 AD (Banerji 1921:23). Jayadaman may have died early (Dubrieul 1920: 20 ; Rapson 1967: 24). Rudradaman was succeeded by his son Rudrasimha. The reign of Damajadasri or Damaghasada was the next. Satyadaman and Jivadaman also ruled for a very short time. Rudrasimha was the next ruler whom we also know from his inscription (Banerji and Sukthankar 1921:235). He was succeeded by Rudrasena I who was also known through his

46 inscriptions of Gadha and Mulawasar (Gadre 1943:1; Banerji and Sukthankar 1921: 236). Damasena the brother of Rudrasena I was the next to rule. Damasena made Damajadasri II, Rudrasena's son and his nephew the next Kshatrapa. The next Kshatrapa was Viradman who held the position from 234 AD to 238 AD. However his younger brother Yasodaman I became Mahakshatrapa. Vijayasena, his younger brother succeeded him as Mahakshatrapa sometime in 239 AD.

He was succeeded by Damajadasri III as Mahakshatrapa in 250 AD. The nephew of Damajadasri III, Rudrasena II succeeded him in 255 AD. He had a long rule of twenty three years from 255 AD to 278 AD. His two sons Visvasimha and Bhartradaman ruled as Kshatrapa simultaneously in the year 200 of their reckoning. Bhartradaman the younger son succeeded him as Mahakshatrapa in 282 AD. His son Visvasena ruled as Kshatrapa from 292 AD till 304 AD. He did not become Mahakshatrapa even after the death of his father Bhartradaman in 295 AD (Jha and Rajgor 1994: 7-13). This was the end of the rule of Chashtana's family.

The family of Chashtana was succeeded by a third family probably not Kardamakas, whose founder was Rudrasimha II, His father Jivadaman does not have a title and is not known to have ruled (Rapson 1967: 27). Rudrasimha II was succeeded by his son Yasodaman II. Rudradaman II, the brother of Rudrasimha II succeeded Yasodaman II. The other rulers to

47 follow were Rudrasena III, Sinihasena, Satyasimha, Rudrasena IV and Rudrasimha III.

The inscriptions of this family have not been found from Gujarat. The Khanakhera inscription from near Sanchi in Madhya Pradesh mentions Jivadaman and that the inscription was erected by Sridharvarman who does not have a title (Banerji 1921:230-233) . It was erected in the name of Svami Jivadaman by a Mahadandanayaka to commemorate the digging of a well. This inscription unlike those of the family of Chashtana, does not mention the names of the predecessors or ancestors. The mentioning of the predecessors is a distinctive feature of the inscriptions of Chashtana's family. The inscription is badly preserved and consists of six lines. Sridharvarman is mentioned as a Scythian who was the son of Nanda, in the kingdom increasing year of thirteen. The inscription is peculiar because the statement "Sva-rajy-abhiridhi-kare vaijayika samvatsare" which means "in the kingdom increasing year". A royal title has not been added to it which makes the statement dubious. It has been used by Mahadandanayaka, a judge or at best a commander of the forces. Now what can be the kingdom of a judge or general? The issuing of an inscription by a non royal has been seen here, in the excavation of a well, as well as in the Gunda inscription from Jamnagar district (Banerji and Sukthankar 1921: 233). But in case of the Gunda inscription the title of the higher authority has been mentioned as

48 Raja or ruler. This leads us to believe that the subordinates of the king have the authority to issue inscriptions.

Therefore, the possibility of a decentralised administration was introduced by the Central Asian tribes who invaded India after the collapse of the Mauryan empire. It is quite possible that in the troublesome times which saw the end of the first dynasty of Kshatraps in Western India, a judge or a general may have practically obtained independence; but the use of regnal years in the case of a prince who for some reason or the other had refrained from openly proclaiming his royalty is very unusual. Sridharvarman does not claim any royal titles, therefore, it is extremely probable that the year thirteen mentioned in line two was not a year of his reign. Most probably it is a regnal year of the reign of his master or suzerain who is mentioned in the previous line.

An interesting feature of the Khanakhera record is the two numerical symbols which have been incised after the last verse. The reason for putting the numerical figures at the end of the record is not understood. The symbol for the unit *one' is commonly found in Kushan records. Western Kshatrapa records and coins. The decimal symbol is the Kushan symbol for seventy. But it seems that it is the Western Kshatrapa symbol for two hundred written at one stroke. It is a modified form of the symbol for hundred written commonly used on Kshatrapa coins. In the Sanchi record the two hundred

49 symbol is modified which resembles the English letter y written in the current hand. We do not know what this number seventy one or two hundred and one indicates. It is not preceded by any such word varshe or samvatsare. Yet the symbols are a date. The qualifying word seems to have been omitted through negligence. The Saka era is almost universally used in the inscriptions and on the coins of the Kardamaka Kshatrapas and the prefix Svamin and suffix daman indicate that the master or suzereign of the Mahadandanayaka Sridharvarman was descended from some younger branch of the family of Chashtana. It is extremely probable that the date used in the Sanchi inscription is a Saka date. Considering the form of characters used in the record, it is absolutely impossible to admit that the numerical symbols at the end stands for seventy one. The difference in the form of the characters used in the Junagadh inscription of Rudradaman, which was incised shortly after the year 72 for the Saka era, and those from Sanchi is very great and therefore could not have been incised in the Saka era 71. The alternative suggested gives a fitting explanation to all the points raised by the newly discovered inscription. The record mentions Svami Jivadman in the first line. We know from coins that the Western Kshatrapa Rudrasimha II had acquired the country of Saurashtra in Saka era 227 (305 AD). Therefore, it is quite possible that his father was alive and was ruling in Saka era 201 (278 AD) . The Sanchi inscription, therefore,

50 fuimishes us with three different items of hitherto unknown information about Svamin Jivadaman: his date, minimum extent of his reign and the locality of his principality. It is now certain that the date of the record is Saka era 201 which is 279 AD, and the association of Jivadaman's name with it shows that he was reigning in that year. It is probable that the kingdom increasing, and victorious reign of the Mahadandanayaka Sridharvarman is really the 13th year of Jivadaman's reign. The accession of Jivadaman can therefore be placed tentatively in Saka year 201-13 i.e. S. 188 (266 AD) Jivadaman could not have been the ruler of Saurashtra in 266 AD because we find an unbroken series of coins of the Mahakshatrapa Rudrasena II and his sons the Mahakshatrapa Visvsimha and Bhartradaman from Saka era 187-201. It. is certain that Svami Jivadaman had no control over Saurashtra during this period.

The latest coin of Kshatrapa Visvasimha was issued in 304 AD. He was succeeded by Kshatrapa Rudrasimha II whose earliest coin was struck in 305 AD. The interval between the two reigns seem to have been exceedingly small. We do not know how the reign of the Kshatrapa Visvasimha ended, nor do we known how Rudrasimha II, the son of Svami Jivadaman came to succeed him. Either Visvasimha was defeated by Rudrasimha and driven out of his ancestral dominions or he died without issue and Rudrasimha II succeeded as next of kin.

51 The only plausible explanation can be the simple fact that Svami Jivadaman definitely was the ruler over Madhya Pradesh and not Gujarat, parallel rule of the two families of Chashtana and Svami Jivadaman, in different areas. The other point made for the absence of coins in the name of Svami Jivadaman is he may have been a subordinate of Chashtana's family and was not allowed to issue coins. We know from the Gunda inscription of Saurashtra (Rudrasimha I) and the present one that inscriptions could be inscribed and erected by anyone. But coin issues were clandestine if issued by any one other than a ruler in power. Rudrasimha II gained power. Between the Khanakhera inscription of Svami Jivadaman and the first coin date of Kshatrapa Rudrasimha II which is 305 AD there is a difference of 25 years.

Two clay seals have been found from Bran and Basarh (Thapyalal 1972:44). The terracotta seetL from Bran depicts a three arched hill symbol and a river with the legend "Rajno Isvaramitraputrasya rajno Simhasrisenasa". He was the son of the sister of Rudrasena III. Two identical clay sealings of Rudrasimha and Rudrasena from Basarh show in the centre a bull, with a sphere between two horns.

The legend, a continuous circle around the edge reads: "Rajno Mahakshatrapasya Svami Rudrasimhasya duhitu Rajno Mahakshatrapasya Bhaginya Mahadevya Prabhudamaya(h)". From this it is clear that not only is Madhya Pradesh the main area of rule of this third family of Kshatrapas,

52 but also the father of Simhasrisena was Isavaramitra, however the identity of this Isvaramitra is not yet known. Not much is known about this family. Their inscriptions have not been found in large numbers and the one mentioned here is different from the inscriptions of Chashtana's family, since there is no mention of a ruler. Jivadaman has been mentioned only as Svami. Since their coins are similar to the Kardamaka coins described earlier no attempt has been made to differentiate between the Kardamakas and this third family. Their names and territories they ruled over are also similar to those of the Kardamakas.

Kshaharatas: The Kshaharatas on the other hand are clearly different from the Kardamakas in their coins, inscriptions, territory ruled over and the period they ruled was earlier than the Kardamakas. The end of Nahapana's rule is dated to 99 AD or 95 AD. His dates have been fixed at AD 53-99 or 7UD 49-95 (Jha and Rajgor 1994:6). The coins of this family are numerous and varied and regional in content (Jha and Rajgor 1994:79-109). Their silver coins legends on the obverse are in Kharosti " Kshatrapa Kshaharata Nahapanasa" and the same legend on the reverse in Brahmi. They depict the head of King on the obverse and thunder bolt and arrow and pellet between the two on the reverse. The base metal coins have a number of motifs which are interchanged (Rapson 1967:63-72).

53 The name of the family, Kshaharata has come down from . The name was known from the inscription of Liaka Patika (Konow 1969:23). Therefore, this family is for certain Saka because the Liaka Patika inscription mentions that the inscription was erected in the reign of the Great King Moga who is a known Saka. Some of Nahapana's coins also have lion capital and dharmacakra which resembles the coins of the Kshaharatas of Mathura. The coins of Nahapana's family resemble the coins of the Pahlavas and the Sakas (Dubreuil 1920:17). Therefore, Nahapana's family probably invaded the Satavahana territory from Madhya Pradesh.

Numismatists, historians, epigraphists and palaeographists have fixed the Kshaharatas as the earlier Kshatrapa family. Of this family there are only three known rulers, Bhumaka, Nahapana and Usavadatta. Another ruler has come to light from a coin find, (Altekar 1950:5-7; Trivedi 1955:89-90), named Aghudaka who probably preceded Nahapana or probably Bhumaka. Nahapana and the Kshaharatas were destroyed by Gautamiputra Satakarni (Senart 1905:60-65). The Jogeithembi hoard of 13250 coins bearing .the name of Nahapana were found counterstruck by Gautamiputra Satakarni. This confirms the defeat of Nahapana mentioned in the inscription of Gotami Balasri, the mother of Gautamiputra Satakarni. After the overthrow of Nahapana by Gautamiputra Satakarni some Sakas had moved to the south where they later established their power (Mirashi 1950:87-90). Though this

54 theory has been contested it is feasible (Jha and Rajgor 1994:7).

Bhumaka was the father of Nahapana. Nahapana had a daughter, Dakshamitra, who was married to Usavadatta (Dubreuil 1920:19). The references to this dynasty are from coins and inscriptions. All the inscriptions are from Maharashtra. Five are from Nasik, two are from Karla, and one from (Senart 1905: 59-96; Luders's List). These inscriptions record mainly donations to religious sects, Brahmanic and Buddhist, charitable acts like collective marriages, construction of rest houses and other amenities at pilgrimage sites. Villages near a cave complex was also donated as well as money for the construction of caves for the Buddhists.

The donatory inscriptions of the Kshaharatas are interesting when compared with the inscriptional content of Gujarat during Kardamaka Kshatrapa rule which are mainly memorial stones. As mentioned earlier, this brings out the economic differences between the two regions because the population of Gujarat during the time of Kshatrapa were pastoral in nature. Another factor would be the deification of the rulers of the Kardamaka family in Gujarat as can be seen from the inscriptions where the names of the rulers have been mentioned from the founding ruler to the ruler in whose reign the inscription by the common man was erected.

55 The deification of rulers represents the ancestor worship and the divine kingship practiced by the Scythians of Central Asia (Khazanov 198<: 142, 168, 178) . This is a different social condition from the Kshaharatas in whose territories none of the inscriptions are of the type found from Gujarat. Therefore, the Kshaharatas had not only a different social set up but were probably from a different type of people altogether.

None of the records of the Kshaharata family, which is earlier, mentions the name of a higher authority like that of Patika's inscription which mentions that the inscription was erected in the 78th year of the Great King Moga. Therefore, clearly none of these two families, the Kardamakas or the Kshaharatas were subordinate to a greater power.

The Kshaharatas and the Kardamakas had skirmishes not only with the adjoining Satavahanas over territory but also over the maritime trade where the ships going to Kalyan were taken over by pirates and brought to Bharuch (Schoff 1912:21). The confrontation between Nahapana and the Satavahanas have already been discussed. How'ever, struggle for lucrative territory mainly that of Bharuch carried on between the Satavahanas and the Kardamaka rulers.

In Rudradaman's Junagadh inscription (Kielhorn 1905 :36- 49) it has been mentioned that Rudradaman defeated a Satavahana ruler who was not a too distant relative, as

56 Rudradaman's daughter was married into the Satavahana family which we know from the Kanheri inscription. This is the second recorded time that skirmishes between the Kshatrapas and Satavahanas have been reported. The first was between Nahapana and Gautamiputra SatsJcami over Bharuch (Jayaswal 1930:282). In the Junagadh Rock inscription of Rudradaman, the cause of disturbance has not been mentioned.

However, the East Gujarat sites which have been described in Chapter V have probc±)le evidence of having been in existence during the late centuries B.C. and early centuries A.D. and also contain pottery which have been found during the period in most excavated sites. The instance of Bharuch mentioned in connection with Nahapana and Gautamiputra, it is believed that the major sites of east Gujarat like Dhatva, Vadodara, Shamalaji, etc, came into prominence during the Satavahana times. The reason for this is the Satavahana rulers did not have a window on the west coast and specially on the route to Ujjain which passed through this region which controlled half the trade in India during the early centuries AD. This region probably functioned as an ancient free trade zone and the benefits were reaped by the ruling dynasty of Gujarat. The position of Rudradaman was probably strengthened further by the marriage of his daughter to the Satavahana family.

57 The Junagadh inscription mentions the source of Rudradaman's wealth from teoces and precious stones. The reason for the iit^jortance of East Gujarat to the ruling dynasties of the Deccan and western India has been described in detail in Chapter V. Therefore, there was constant contact between the Western Kshatrapas and the Satavahana rulers.

Besides the above, there were also other intrxisions. In the Uparkot coin hoard along with Kshatrapa coins there were coins of Mahakshatrapa Isvaradatta who was an Abhira and not a Kardamaka Kshatrapa. These coins are similar to the Kardamaka silver coins in motif but not in legend. The patronymic in the reverse legend is not given. His coin dates in his regnal years and given as varse prathame (in the first year) and varse dvitiye (in the second year) and is supposed to have ruled in Saka era 154 (Gokhale 1978:34). This date falls during the rule of Damasena.

Saurashtra was supposed to have been controlled by the Indo-Parthians in the 1st c. AD. (Mitchener 1976: 823) . This is due to the information given by the Periplus (Schoff 1912:2). A series of copper and silver coins of the Indo-Parthians have also been found from Saurashtra. The motifs are Parthian bust/swastika and standing king facing/swastika. An attempt was made to relate Bhumaka through a ruler Aghudaka to Ladhanes, a nephew of Gondopharnes.

58 The reason for this link up is due to Mitchener's reading of the coin legends as Chahratha written in Kharosti on them. Some of the coins read as Parata, therefore, the coin readings are not definite. The Parata have been taken as referring to a north-west Indian tribal group (Jha and Rajgor 1994: 3). Therefore, the presence of the Parthians in Saurashtra is not definite. However, one thing is certain that in the Periplus (Schoff 1912) there is no mention of Kutch. The Gulf of Kutch has been described as being next to the Indus delta and the northern tip of Saurashtra has been described. There is no mention of the Kutch coast in the Periplus (Schoff 1912:24). Therefore, Kutch may have been under the Parthians in the time of the Periplus which is before the time of Chashtana.

Saurashtra could not have been under the Indo-Parthians since the Periplus (Schoff 1912:34) mentions several ports on the Saurashtra coast like Mongolosson and Hathab, which could not have been the case if the Parthians had been ruling over Saurashtra. The Periplus itself has mentioned that due to the Rome-Parthian wars the territory ruled by the Parthians were out of bounds for the Roman traders (Schoff 1912:4).

There is another unexplained feature of Gujarat history during the Kshatrapa times. The casket inscription found from the Devnimori stupa mentions the Kathika era in association with the year 127 during the reign of Rudrasena (Mirashi

59 1965:102). However, this cannot be determined unless another record of this era is found.

Thus, a wholesome picture has been given on Gujarat and its relationships with the rest of peninsular India in the early centuries of the Christian Era. The conclusion has been reached that all inscriptions of Chashtana's family have been found from Gujarat and that majority of them are memorial stones and the people who erected these stones were pastoralists and Scythians.

The character of the inscriptions of Nahapana's family found from Maharashtra are different from those of the /^/Kardamakas/fcecause of the economic functioning of the two / areas, the Deccan and Gujarat were different from one another due to the content of goods offered by them. These Kshatrapas ruled different areas and some of them at different times. They were different groups as well.

Therefore, the history of India during the 1st four centuries AD was different for different areas.

60