________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1892. Andhras, at about the year 48 or 50 of his era. What is that era ? If, hypothetically, we suggest the era of Kanishka, the date 125 to 128 A. D. which we get, agrees so exactly with that to which we are led on the other hand as the date of the coming to power of his conqueror, that the proof seems to be decisive. I may add that, according to a restoration which Dr. Bühlers considers as almost certain,' Usavadata, the son-in-law of Nahapâna, in one of his inscriptions calls himself a Saka. It is, therefore, probable that this family of Kshaharâtas held its power, as vassal satraps, from the Turashkas of the dynasty of Kanishka; and nothing could be more natural than that they should have used the era adopted by their suzerains. After them, the family of Sênas must have simply followed their official tradition, as the Valabhi kings did in later years when they succeeded the Guptas. The name of Salivahana by which this era came eventually to be designated, appears to be a recollection of the similar procedure by which the sovereigns of the Dekhan, on their side, appropriated the era founded in the north by the 'Saka king.
206
Another result which follows from the above is that we now find the members of the Andhra dynasty, who more immediately interest us here, placed in their chronological position. I have mentioned their names above.
If we take 126 A. D. as the date of the victory of Gotamiputa Satakani over Nahapana, an inscription of the conquerorie proves, on the other hand, that this event must have occurred before the 14th year of his reign, for he sends orders dated in that year to the representative of his authority at Násik. Various epigraphical monuments testify that he reigned at least 24 years; and we thus get the year 126 + 11, say 137 A. D., for the end of his reign, and the coming to the throne of his successor Vasiṭhîpata Pulumâyi. The rule of this prince having lasted at least 24 years, that of Madhariputa Sirisena at least 8, and that of Visithiputa Sâtakani at least 13, we arrive, for the conclusion of this last reign, at least at the date 137+24+8+13= say 182 A. D. Rudradaman, the Kshatrapa, having ceased to reign before 180 A. D., it follows that it was certainly Vasithiputa Satakani, and not his successor, who is referred to in the inscription of Girnar.
We see how completely all these data agree amongst themselves. The verification which is, in my opinion, the most important, consists in the complete accord which this system establishes without any effort, with the presumptions which we are entitled to draw from the mention made by Ptolemy of Chashtana and Palamâyi. It must be, as we have seen, about the years 185 to 145 A. D. that this mention should à priori, lead us to fix the reigns of these personages, and, that too, independently of any preconceived ideas, or of any clue obtained from Indian sources. On the other hand, our deductions, founded on absolutely independent calculations refer the former to the years 130 to 140 or 145, and the second to the years 137 to 161 A. D. In the face of so striking a result it appears to me difficult to avoid recognizing how artificial and how fine-drawn must be the suppositions, by which some writers have sought to weaken the induction which the text of the geographer at once suggests to us.
On the other hand, I must express my entire agreement with Dr. Bühler in the criticism to which he submits the rash attempts which have been risked to reconstitute the chronology of the period anterior to the Andhrabhṛityas. Their contradictions, and especially the positive data which are furnished by the monuments, shew how little confidence is deserved by the lists of the Puranas.
The more this epoch is still enveloped in obscurity, the rarer the means of marking out its historical development, the more important is it to cling with all our power to the marks which we have been able, in my opinion, to fix with confidence. I sum them up here.
1. The Saka era of 78 A. D. is the era founded by Kanishka. His monuments and those of his successors, the last of whom are lost in the obscurity which surrounds the commencement of the Gupta dynasty in 319 A. D., are dated in that era.
18 Arch. Sur. West. Ind. IV. 101.
19 Arch. Sur. West. Ind. IV. 15.
