________________
No. 23]
BRAHMI INSCRIPTIONS FROM BANDHOGARH
175
and Bhimasena were discovered along with other antiquities above the Maurya level and therefore Marshall placed them in the Kushāņa period. The stratigraphic evidence supplied by the excav&tions at Kausāmbi carried out by the Allahabad University gives us some interesting and more definite information. According to a brief report sent to me by Mr. G. R. Sharma on the position of the Kushāna antiquities, he found nine sub-periods of baked brick habitation at Kaubāmbi, commencing from I(a) and I(6) to VIII which is the last sub-period. He did not find any trace of Kushāna antiquity, coins or seals, up to sub-period IV. Sub-period V is the first stratum in which Mitra and Kushäna coins and Kushāņa seals occur. Part of this period therefore seems to have been under the rule of the Mitras whose latest coins are those of Rajanimitra and Jyethamitra. Towards the later half of sub-period V, the Kushāņas seem to have invaded Kaubāmbi, & seal of Kaņishka bearing the legend Mahārāja-Rājātirāja Devaputra-Kanishkasya prayoge offering the earliest evidence. The coins of Kanishka, Huvishka and Väsudeva have been recovered from subperiod VI which has yielded also the coins of Neva and the Maghas. Sub-period VII has yielded coins of the Maghas only and to sub-period VIII belongs Pusvasri. The latest coins discovered after that period are those of Ganendra or Ganapatināga when the entire site seems to have been deserted. We know from the Allahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta that Ganapatinage, the Nāga ruler of Padmāvati (near Narwar in the former Gwalior State), was one of the kings defeated by Samudragupta. Assuming therefore that Ganapatināga ruled between 325-350 A.D. it is difficult to compress all these presumably independent kings, viz. Pusvasri, the Magha rulers, Neva and the Kushāņa kings from Kanishka onwards, within this period except on the assumption that the Kushāņa era began in 78 A.D. This gives another conclusive evidence against the use of the Kalachuri era in the Magha records as there would be a big gap of about 150 years between the Kushāņa king Vāsudēva, assuming that the Kusbaņa era began in 78 A.D., and Bhadramagha whose earliest inscription is dated in the year 81. Even accepting that there might be one or two more rulers before Bhadramagha the gap would remain quite large. This gap would be even larger if the commencement of the Kushāna era is placed at an earlier date. The excavations at Kausámbi do not provide for this gap. The discovery of Kanishka's seal would definitely show that Kaušāmbi came under Kushāna rule in the time of this king. But the discovery of the coins of Vasudeva creates some difficulty as it might be argued that Kaubāmbi was under the Kushāna rule during the reign of Bhadramagha. But we must not overlook one very significant fact that no inscription of Vasudeva has so far been discovered outside the Mathurā region. On the face of this evidence, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the Kushäņas had lost their hold over Kaugămbi when the Maghas came into power. The discovery of Vasudeva's coin at Kaugămbi does not necessarily mean that this area was under his rule. The reason of this find may be that, though their rule was extinct, coins of the Kushäņas were still used in the Kaubambi area for the purpose of trade side by side with the coins issued by the local Magha rulers. Such instances are not rare in the history of numismatics of ancient India.' Even foreign coins like the Roman aurei were not only accepted but were popular currency in India for a long time not merely for its gold value but also for the facility of trade with the Roman world. If this view is accepted and the dates of the Magha inscriptions are referred to the Saka era of 78 A.D., there would neither be any overlapping nor any unreasonable gap between the Kushäņa and the Magha rule over Kaubambi. The palaeography of the Magha inscriptions does not offer any insurmountable difficulty. Though at first sight the script of the Magha records looks later, Mirashi has already
1 A81, AR, 1911-12, p. 51. The legends on these seals read Maharajasya Gautamiputrasya Sivamaghanya and [Ra]jña Väsasu( Väsish thi)-putrasya fri-Bhimasenasya. Jayaswal rightly identifies Bhimasena with the ruler mentioned in the Ginja inscription ; but A. Ghosh rejects the theory on the ground of their different titles, viz. Rajan and Maharaja. Seo Ind. Cult., 1936, p. 179.
[The correct reading of this name seems to be Praushthafri.--Ed.] . [On this point, of. JNSI, Vol. VII, pp. 78 ff.-Ed.]
