________________
OCTOBER, 1883.)
ANDHRAS AND KSHATRAPAS.
273
Vâsishthiputra Satakarņi of Kaņheri 3. Mâdhariputa Sakasena or Sirisena. 8 years. No. 11 is the same person as Chaturapana 4. Vasithipata Chaturapána Satakaại 13 , Våsish thiputra Satakarni, and his 5. Siriyaña Gotamiputa Satakani II. 16 , queen, the daughter of the Mahakshatrapa The position of Madhariputa Sakasena or Rudra, is the mother of Siriya ñ a, usually Sirisena, whom the Pandit forgets in his latest called Gotami, i.e., Gautami according to the discussion, is perfectly certain, as it has been Vaidika gotra of her father's Purohita. We shown by the Pandit himself, that this king have, therefore, in this inscription an explana- bas re-struck coins of Pulumáyi, while coins tion of the adáratayd sashbandha,--the near of his were re-struck by Gotamiputa Siriyaña connexion by marriage between the Kshatrapas Såtakaại II. But it is by no means certain and the Andhras, which is mentioned in the that another, as yet unknown, king did not Junagadh inscription and an argument for intervene between Nos. 2 and 3, or between identifying the Satakarni of the Junagadh Nos. 3 and 4. The dates, given above, are those inscription either with Chaturapana V â- which actually occur on the inscriptions, and in sishthiputra Satakarni, or with most cases the reigns probably were somewhat Gotamiputa Siriyana Sataka ni. longer. A farther confirmation of these inferences is As regards the synchronisms between the furnished by the fact that the letters of Andhras and the Western Kshatrapas, there are Kanheri No. 11 are the exact counterpart of now, one which is certain, and two which are those of Rudradâman's Junagadh inscription, very probable. First, Gotamiputa Sataand both documents belong to the same time. kaņi certainly conquered Nahapana and
As regards the explanation of the re- his son-in-law Ushava dáta after the 46th maining problems, the questions who Maha- year of the era of their inscriptions, and before kshatrapa Rudra was, and what may be the fourteenth year of his own reign. This is meant by the term Karddamakarájavamsa, I evident from the date Sam. 46, contained in am not as yet prepared to offer any definite the minister A yama's Junnar Inscription No. 32 opinion. I think it not improbable that (Arch. Reports, vol. IV, p. 103), and from the fact Rudra may be a short form for Rudra- that Satakaņi Gotamiputa addresses his orders dam & n, just like Vikrama for Vikra- to his amatya, in charge of Govardhana-Nasik, mådity, and that Karddamakardja may have in the rainy season of the 14th year of his reign been a title of the Western Kshatrapas. If (Nasik 1lB, Reports, vol. IV; p. 105). As that were the case, Chaturapana would have Ushavadâta's Nâsik and Karle inscriptions been Rudradâman's son-in-law, and Siriyana show that Nahapana held Nasik and the would have been grandson, and the near rela- country south of Nâsik, it is clear that if tionship would certainly be & sufficient ground Satakaại, in the 14th year of his reign, had & for either being spared after defeat. But, as governor of his own at Nasik, the overthrow more than one line of Kshatrapas certainly of the Khaharâtas must have happened before existed, it is also possible that Siriyana's mother that year. The second synchronism, which is was the daughter of some other near relative probable, is that Pulu må yi and Chashtaof Rudradaman, who ruled at a place called na were contemporaries. This is probable Kard dama
because Puļumâyi is the immediate successor Pandit Bhagvanlal's further remarks on the of Satakaņi and Chashtana the next Kshatrapa chronology of the Andhras require very con- of Ujjain after Nahậpana. It may also be siderable modifications. According to the indicated by Ptolemy's mentioning just these inscriptions and coins the group of kings two kings as rulers of Paithân and of Ujjain. beginning with Satakami Gotamiputa I. stands Ptolemy's statement possesses, however, not now, as follows:
that paramount importance which Mr. Bhâu 1. Gotamiputa Satakani I reigned
Daji, Pandit Bhagvanil, and others attribute at least.
........... 24 years. to it. For there is nothing to show that Ptolemy 2. Puļumâyi, Vasithipata................ 24 , meant to say more than that Tiastanes
A locality, called Kardamila, is known from the either as the name or the title of a son of KsheMahabharata. Kardamarája occurs in the Rajatarangin, magupta.
