________________
JULY, 1892.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
205
The terms in which Ptolemy speaks of these sovereigns, Tiastanes, Siri Polemaios and Baleocotros, give us naturally the impression that he speaks of princes of his own time. Without any doubt this conclusion is in no way a forced one. He could, it is true, have drawn upon previous authorities, and his information regarding such distant countries was not necessarily up to date ; but, until the contrary is proved, every presumption is in favour of the most simple solution, which makes the princes reign at the same epoch as that in which he wrote the geography, or a short time before. Ptolemy is credited with having composed his book a few years after 150 A. D., and we are, therefore, entitled, à priori, to consider that Chashtana and Pulum&yi V Asițhiputa must have been in possession of their power between about 135 and 145. This conclusion, which is admitted by several scholars, 10 will impose itself with yet greater force upon our attention, if it is found to accord with the chronological data, wbich it is possible to collect directly in India. This is exactly the case.
Prof. Oldenberg has strongly insisted upon the reasons which prevent us from fixing at a later date than the commencement of the second century the era of the Kshatrapa kings of Gujarat, that is to say of the dynasty, the founder of which was, as we gather from the inscriptions, Chashtana. The arguments on the basis of which he hesitates to make it coincide with the Såka era of 78 A. D. appear to me to be less convincing. We know of a Kshatrapa coin bearing not only the date 300, but the date 310 of the Kshatrapa era ;12 the date 83 of the Gupta era, i. e. (319 + 83 = ) 402 A. D., is the earliest one of their successors in Málava, 13 the Guptas, of which we have evidence, and it is hence impossible to bring down the commencement of the Kshatrapa era to a later date than 90 A. D. As it is, on the other hand, certain that the Kshatrapas were not the originators of the era which they employed, - we shall shortly see that it was also used by Naha pâna, - it seems to me that the strongest probabilities lead us to conclude, with Pandits Bhagwanlal and Bhandarkar, that it was the 'Saka era of 78 A. D., the era of Kanishka, which they adopted.
Every one is now, I believe, agreed in considering with Messrs. Oldenberg and Bhagwan. lal,15 that Nabapâna was, in Gujarât, the representative of the race of the Kshaharatas, which was conquered by Gotamiputa Så takani, and which immediately preceded this dynasty of Kshatrapa Sênas, of whom Chashtana was the first representative.
It will now be sufficient to mention the dates supplied to us by certain inscriptions; and we shall see how they adjust themselves, and how happily they coincide with the presumptions to which we have come independently.
According to the Girnar inscription, Rudradaman was on the throne in the year 72 of his era, which we suggest to be the Saka era. Coins of his son Rudrasimha bear the dates 102 to 117, and it is probable that the first mentioned ones go back to the commencement of his reign.18 It is, therefore, likely that the reign of his father Rudradâman could not have commenced much before the year 150 A. D., the date of the bursting of the embankment at Girnar. Every indication points to the conclusion that the reign of his father Jayadaman was short, and Chashtana, as founder of the dynasty, could only have come into power at a mature age. There is, therefore, small room for making mistakes, if we'allow for these two reigns a period of 20 or 22 years. The accession to power of the Senas would thus be placed at about the year 128 or 130 A. D.
An inscription of Junnar, 17 proves that Nahapana was still king in the year 46 of the era which he employed : the inscriptions of his son-in-law Usavadâ ta, which are known to us; are earlier, bearing the dates 40, 41, 42. We can thus put the destruction of his power by the
30 Of. Bhandarkar, loc. cit. BhagwânlA1 Indraji, art. cit. 11 art. cit. pp. 315 and #f.
12 Bühler, in Burgess, Arch. Suru. West. Ind. p. 78. 11 Of., for example, Thomas in Burgess, Arch. Suru. West. Ind. II. p. 20. 14 loc. cit. pp. 319, and ff.
10 Ind. Ant. 1878, p. 258. al. 10 Bhagwanlal Indraji, in J. R. A. 8., Bo. XIII. p. 315.
17 Arch. Surv. West Ind. IV. 103.
